film industry analysis final draft done!!!

1Film Industry Analysis

Film Industry Analysis

John Wyche

Christopher Newport University


Abstract

This paper examines the first mass-entertainment industry and its important economic emergence in the market. Throughout time, new concepts and ideas evolve, and people adapt accordingly to different measures of innovation and knowledge. As an industry analysis paper, general queries regarding its occurrence and history are presented along with details on cost factors, demand, competition, regulation, current issues, etc. Work from Oliver E. Williamson (2009) contains a variety of economic theories explaining the structure, nature of the firm, and human behavior regarding the industry. The process of filmmaking has led to a set of organizational and contractual arrangements that have been adapted to changing technology and have evolved throughout time to solve risks faced by the industry. Focusing on the film industry and its market, this paper will build from Williamson’s concept of human organization with decisions within the firm or left towards the marketplace.

Keywords: Firm, Marketplace, Economic Emergence

JEL Codes: L82, L22, L25,


Introduction

Feature films are one of the most popular cultural entertainment expressions known

worldwide, with an audience of around 7.5 billion people per year (Lez & Deloumeaux, 2013).

Film is considered an art form of such that comprises a series of individual motion pictures into a

story or whatever you desire it to be. This art is brought about by our creative minds developed

through cultures that reflect those cultures in through different techniques that creators have in

mind. This technological art of visual elements is probably one of the greatest sources of

communication used primarily for mass entertainment. Hollywood movies are more than

entertainment. Feagin (2009) explains that for the majority of Americans, Hollywood films

portray images, ideas, and data about the social world. With this phenomenon and substantial

popularity comes business which ultimately creates the film industry. Being an industry involves

aspects of business such as risk, regulation, transactional issues, effects on society,

developmental innovations, organizational arrangements, and contractual arrangements. Work

from nobelist Oliver E. Williamson are used to help describe human organization and

governance when applying to decisions made of the industry, or in this case, the film industry.

Defining the industry historically and currently as well as posing potential future modifications

will aid in the comprehension of the film industry as a whole.

Governance

John R. Commons, quoted from Williamson (2009), made his own definition of

economic organization as, “The ultimate unit of activity… must contain in itself the three

principles of conflict, mutuality, and order. This unit is a transaction. Theories of economics

center on transactions and working rules, on problems of organization, and on the…[ways] the

organization of activity is…stabilized” (Williamson, 2009, pg. 456). Williamson states that the


“Commons Triple” of conflict, mutuality, and order aids in the understanding of governance

such that governance is the thought by which to have order, to diminish conflict, and realize

known mutual gain (Williamson, 2009). In the field of economic governance, Oliver E.

Williamson’s theory shows us about how to handle one of the most basic choices in human

organization. When should decision power be controlled inside an organization, and when should

decision be left to the market. Acheson and Maule (2005) address a two-parted question. The

first questions how the internationally oriented segment of the industry deals with a unique mix

of risk and informational challenges. The second is why institutions based in the United States

were able to dominate the functions of distribution and finance and develop a product type that

was successful in international markets. Acheson states that integrative contractual networks and

institutional relationships have been adapting and progressing in accordance to the informational

and risk environment in which films are made and distributed (Acheson & Maule, 2005, pg.

312). The economics of film are arguably different from other industries. Although different,

Acheson and Maule find commonalities even though each has their own special aspect of

economic, political, social, social and technological instances. For example, film is a source of

cultural messages, as well as newspapers, magazines, books, and religious institutions. Human

governance leads to a better understanding of human organization in structuring for a better

industry.

Organization

Harold Demsetz claims that “It is a mistake to confuse the firm of [neoclassical]

economic theory with its real-world namesake. The chief mission of neoclassical economics is to

understand how the price system coordinates the use of resources, not the inner workings of real

firms” (Williamson, 2009). The study of bounded rationality is important when comprehending


economic organization. Herbert Simon describes bounded rationality as that the effort of the

human mind of solving complicated problems does not compare to the actual size of solutions

required for real world rational behavior problems (Williamson, 1996). Acheson and Maule

(2005) state that organizational structures have evolved throughout time to deal with issues of

making right films as well as making them right. Vertical integration provided known assurances

in the film industry in some major cities where major studies would own theaters to show their

film. Audience attendance-risk is lowered this way, and allowed producers to plan and market

their films better with ease. Defense against monopolization accusations were made from

knowledge of known risk and informational characteristics of film exposition and distribution

(Acheson & Maule, 2005). Acheson claims legal decisions affect organizational change, creating

long-term contracts with people to be less effect, also anti-trust decisions controlling the line

between distribution and exposition. Other than integration by ownership, knowledge gained

over time with contractual and relational integration is a factor of this change. Currently, most

studios do not have a large number of production employees on long-term contracts, and big

executives in charge of projects are more mobile as well. Acheson and Maule (2005) states,

“Over time, Hollywood has developed an organizational structure that is effective in selecting

persons who can manage the relationship among different professional cultures – the financiers,

those like Mayer in charge of making the films, and the artistic talent and key inputs employed”

(pg. 327). Quoted from Williamson (1996), Simon explains, “Only because individual human

beings are limited in knowledge, foresight, skill, and time that organizations are useful

instruments for the achievement of human purpose” (pg. 36). Williamson (1996) states that if a

firm is a governance structure, then the boundary of the firm should be set in alignment with its

capacity (compared with the market) to provide useful organizational functions. Moreover,


organizational theory of the firm needs to take its place with technological theory of the firm.

Information in defining the film industry is necessary when analyzing different aspects of

governance and organization.

Defining the Industry

The film industry is primarily involved with making and distributing films as a product

worldwide. This movie industry is very competitive with a multitude of major studios as well as

independent production companies. Film producers are generally the people on top of the film

industry who are involved with the marketing and finances for the goal of making massive

profits. Through this business standpoint, jobs are appointed to oversee and get the resources for

the artistic side of creating the film like hiring the talent. Through the artistic side, the higher

paid individuals, such as the directors and screenwriters, have the most power in this area of the

film industry because they create the movies that the film producers distribute out to the public.

The biggest set of employees is not in charge of producing or creating the films, but for

maintaining the set and making the process smoother and flexible so the artists can do their job.

The film industry is an ongoing global business conducted throughout the world. The

largest markets by box office are the United States, China, and Japan. Dixon and Foster (2011)

explain that Hollywood, with its supreme technological resources and known dominance of

commercial cinema, opens up new outlets and platforms that improve global Hollywood in

exciting ways from their shift to digital resources. Lynch, quoted from Dixon and Foster (2011),

describes that Hollywood’s dependence on global markets and cooperation might undermine its

sustainability in the box office in the United States. Decades ago, Hollywood was more

dependent on domestic standards than foreign markets. Currently, blockbuster success is aided


mostly through foreign markets. Critically “bad” movies that did not do well domestically would

be saved by international markets distributed throughout the globe to maybe break even or gain

little profits. Lynch, quoted from Dixon and Foster (2011) thinks Hollywood is not adapting to

global changes and thinks that the American way, mostly known as the definitive way, is a dead

idea. Compared to Hollywood, China, another cinema powerhouse, is not dependent on

international global distribution and has been progressively successful in Chinese films created

for Chinese audiences. Dixon and Foster (2011) note that revenue growth has increased by 25

percent each year, and that “China has nurtured a new generation of directors who make Chinese

hits for Chinese audiences” (pg. 88). Even with this idea, American cinema has not caught on yet

to Chinese tactics. Differentiated from the top two movie industry countries is Nollywood

(Nigerian film industry). Just to show cinema on a global scale, Nollywood, in 2006, shot and

produced around 1,600 full-length films. The cost of all these films combined is about $60

million in U.S. currency; or maybe the cost of a ‘medium-budget’ Hollywood film (Dixon &

Foster 2011). Analyzing the film industry in an historical aspect through the years is imperative

in defining the firm and how far it has gone.

History

The start of this legendary mass-entertainment industry of Hollywood began in the 20th

century. But the very beginning and creating of motion picture was invented in 1885 by George

Eastman (“The History of the Hollywood Movie Industry”, 2014). Through time, advancements

were made by brothers Auguste and Louis Lumiere where they created the cinematographe that

projects a series of fast still pictures in a succession. A popular movie was The Great Train

Robbery in 1903 by Edwin S. Porter (“The History”, 2014). The first film created in Hollywood

was The Squaw Man in 1914 by Cecil B. DeMille’s, when the director apparently picked last-


minute to have it shot in Los Angeles (“The History”, 2014). “Hollywood” by 1919 has been

known as the great American cinema and still is now. Hollywood was its own cultural bubble

inside of Los Angeles receiving attention from around the world. With the age of movies, came

the “movie star”. With the industry starting up, there had to be movie studios which came to be a

huge public image. One of the first and most popular firms was Warner Brothers Pictures,

Paramount, RKO, Metro Goldwin Meyer, and 20th Century Fox (“The History”, 2014).

As the years go by, innovation in the industry and art occur. An example of this would be

the addition of sound. With this, a whole new spectrum of genres comes into play including

action, documentaries, musicals, comedies, horror, and westerns, making the movie industry all

the more popular. Reaching the 1940’s, advancements of technology of the creation of special

effects, color, and better sound recording quality made films more appealing. A substantial

change in American society occurred with the invention of television sets. By 1950, around 10

million homes owned one (“The History”, 2014). With every decade came a new societal change

of culture marketing towards different demographics or “fashions”. For instance, the 1960s were

particularly focused on having fun, rock n’ roll, and fashion. By the end of the 1980s, budgets of

production increased because of use of special effects. Therefore, to save money, films were

created in foreign locations. From the creation of the multiscreen Cineplex, audiences started to

rise more and more. Through the 90’s, video rentals had higher sales than movie tickets, and by

1992 the CD-ROM’s were made. By 1997, DVD’s launched which produced better quality than

VHS tapes. Jumping into the 21st Century, rapid advances of technology arose for film including

Blu-ray discs. Now, in the digital era, everyone can watch anything on their phones and

computers, as well as streaming services like Netflix (“The History”, 2014).


Digitization

Opening up a whole new spectrum of visual figuration is digitization. Within the last

decade or two, digitization has been the main medium of visual entertainment. This

technological change is not just focused on cinema, but as a societal digital era. With this new

wave of culture, bookstores, record stores, and movie rental stores such as Blockbuster have

mostly disappeared and gone out of business. CDs and DVDs are popular with older consumers;

younger audiences don’t see the point of owning a physical copy of a movie or book when they

are all instantly available to download (Dixon & Foster, 2011). It has also come to the point that

even though old films are digitalized and then downloaded to a DVD for home use, both

mediums have the same picture but viewers like the fact that it is on a new platform. Within the

digital era, there are ways now to watch films instantly on cable or television as on-demand

items or through pay-per-view options. Dixon and Foster (2011) explain, although there is a low

cost of the digital age of production, distribution is the most important on who will see what

films, where, and how. Carl Rosendahl quoted from Dixon and Foster (2011) says, “For

independent filmmakers, that fact remains that if you want your film in broad distribution, you

still have to partner with a studio. You can make a great film but you can’t get it into 3,000

theaters without being able to back the film with millions of dollars of advertising. Most

filmmakers can’t do that, so they need the studios” (Foster and Dixon, 2011, pg. 35). Digitization

is a major effect upon the industry, but there are other societal effects that the film industry has

brought.


Effects on society

Cinema arguably has one of the most powerful impacts of communication and culture

throughout the world. So then how does the film industry actually affect society? A well-known

argument within the movie world is whether or not movie violence may be harmful or not.

Thomson (2009) views this question negatively and suggests that cinematic violence might

unintentionally harm viewers from the thousands of hours of violent imagery that they are

exposed to. Thomson (2009) says, “The world of film… needs to examine very carefully what

happens in our minds when we watch endless violent imagery and feel no wounds or

repercussions” (pg. 20). He thinks, especially for the youth, that violence in movies could hinder

people’s ability to connect violence and consequence, then resulting in a more dangerous and

hostile society (Thomson, 2009). So in a way, Thomson believes cinema is a synonym for

violence. An opposing viewpoint by Dahl and DellaVigna (2009) both argue that violence in

movies actually may lower crime rates by attracting potential criminals and incapacitating them

in theaters. This counter point to Thomson (2009), suggests that violent movies with high

attendance during evening weekend hours correlate with a decline of assaults.

Another known argument on par with violence is the possible influence of at-risk

behavior. Gunasekera, Chapman, and Campbell (2009) suggest that recent popular movies within

the last two decades have consistently projected unprotected sex, drug, and alcohol use as a

consequence-free lifestyle which may potentially harm viewers through negative behavioral

manners. The popularity of films within the past decades has presented these ideas not usually in

a negative outlook which influences at-risk behavior. The World Health Organization (WHO)

presented statistics in 2003 that there were over 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS with 5

million newly diagnosed (Gunasekera, Chapman, Campbell, 2009). Unsafe sex and injected drug


use in the movies is the main cause shown through most population behavior. Using the top 200

movies of all time, from September 30, 2003, and reducing to 87 including live-action, HIV era

movies with ratings more mature than PG; have depicted results of negative behavior

(Gunasekera, Chapman, Campbell, 2009). Seventy five percent of these movies showed negative

health behavior from the following: unprotected sex (32%), marijuana (8%), non-injected illicit

drug use (7%), smoking (68%), or the consumption of alcohol (32%) (Gunasekera, Chapman,

Campbell, 2009). Dissimilarly, David Goldenberg (2009) argues that the common view

correlating popular movies to at-risk behavior represents slanted data portraying Hollywood as a

main source of causality. Goldenberg (2009) says, “Feeding us biased studied about the

supposed evils of silly movies is unhelpful at best, and at worst diverts energy and supports away

from legitimate public-health concerns” (pg. 46). Serious flaws on the previous data collection

from Gunasekera, Chapman, and Campbell (2009) on the “analysis of the top 200 films” are

accounted for from Goldenberg (2009). Goldenberg (2009) suggests that their studies only deal

with 87 movies in the last 20 years having a rating above PG. This ‘artificially’ boosts their

numbers because of the lack of animated movies or films that were pre-HIV era, and etc. With

these, previous claims seem to coincide with untrustworthy methods and subjectivity.

Arguably the most conflictual talked-about notion of society is racism. Feagin (2009)

discusses that the Hollywood film industry has not completely rid of America’s racist past

through cinema. Feagin (2009) says, “Given the absence of Americans of color in key positions,

it is not surprising that the views offered by Hollywood are often misinformed or thoroughly

white-washed” (pg. 53). He states that the mass media and moviemaking business is dominated

and influences by the “media elite”. These media elite, composed of a few dozen white men, are

the controllers of the U.S. moviemaking force that he thinks tries to maintain current class,


racial, and gender arrangements of ideologies that justify social hierarchies of our “unequal”

society (Feagin, 2009). He believes that most Americans, especially white, are not too informed

about U.S. history and society so then the media elite can take advantage of this and continue to

misinform racial portrayals. A differing point of view of racism in the film industry is from Ross

(2009), that says, “ Evidence is there that, in unprecedented numbers, the interests and passions

of minorities across the board – not just African Americans – are taking their place in the

pantheon of the most popular art form in the world” ( pg. 62). Award nominations and winnings

of African Americans such as Jamie Foxx (Ray), Morgan Freeman (Million Dollar Baby), Lupita

Nyong’o (12 years a slave) and so much more might be the “tipping point” for popular culture.

Achievement in film is leaning towards merit and earning respect for hard work. This is not just

a trend of race, but turning points of this aspect are also coinciding with gender and subject

matter.

Regulation

Films present new cultures and ideas to audiences in a variety of different ways.

Therefore, to appropriately present movies in a positive manner, parents have that important role

to see if their kids are suitable to watch or not (Motion Picture Association of America, 2015).

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) represents the six major Hollywood studios

that build guidelines for film content which produced the production code, as well as the

operation of the MPAA film rating system. But how effective is self-regulation on the film

industry? Walker (2009) claims that the film rating system prevents federal censorship of the

film industry. He says, “Instead of restricting information with censorship, the MPAA would

increase the available information, with classifications aimed at letting potential patrons know

just what to expect” (Walker, 2009, pg. 121). Another viewpoint on the film industry’s self-


regulation is the over-commercialism it allows. This is an issue brought up by Robin Good

(2009), who suggests that Hollywood has been practicing commercialism and product placement

to the extreme where they interfere with the creative vision of the writers and directors.

Therefore, perspective audiences have looked more on the internet instead for inspired

entertainment. His solution is to stop this endless funding of this “relentless corporate

propaganda machine”. An opposing view from Weintraub (2009), stating that these Hollywood

traditions have been in correlation with one another since the 1890s (The Film, Weintraub,

2009). She believes the influence of product placement has little effect or as much as what Robin

Good says. Since they have been in the film industry for such a long time, it’s as if they were

meant to be with each other like a strong tradition. Regulation is a major aspect of the film

industry, but transaction costs bring a better understanding in an economic perspective.

Transaction Cost

The goal of transaction cost economics is to identify, explicate, and mitigate contractual

hazards (Williamson, 1996). Bounded rationality and opportunism are the two behavioral

assumptions in which it all works. Opportunism is taking an opportunity when it uncovered

without planning. In the film industry, risk arises from opportunistic behavior. Opportunism is

economically inefficient because an individual’s behavior that is less informed and acts

accordingly for themselves rather than other parties creates disorder. An example of opportunism

would be between the distributor and the producer. Acheson and Maule (2005) state that

commitments made early by distributors are imperative to financing film productions, as well as

for the signal sent to other financing sources that do not know much about the business.

Payments won’t be honored from the producer is the risk (Acheson & Maule, 2005). Williamson

(1996) would describe transaction cost economics as relentlessly comparative, microanalytic,


discrete structural, and preoccupied with economizing with reference to organization rather than

technology. Through the film industry, there are transaction issues in making a film. Making a

film is a long and complicated process. First, an idea is originated for a film idea. Writers then

make a script which is either selected or not selected in a developmental costly production

process. The development side, known as the production team (director, cinematographer, actors,

line producer, special effects, technical personnel), can be identified also with the managerial

process of identifying the best set of inputs, arranging financing, coordinating production and

arranging costs (Acheson & Maule, 2005, pg. 314). Distribution on the other side of

development carries rights licenses in a spectrum of markets like video/DVD rights, television

rights, cinematic rights, etc. Once shooting begins, planning tools are made which are

represented by the script and the budget. Contrasted with the making of another product like

clothing or cars, a film evolves during the movie making process with additions and deductions

to the script. According to Acheson, the producer’s most challenging problem is monitoring the

inputs covered by the “above-the-line” costs (story, director, cast and extras). The firm-as-

production function approach suggests technology (economies of scale, non-separabilities) as the

main prospects of “natural” boundaries of the firm (Williamson, 1996). Transaction economics

describes the firm from an efficient contracting/comparative organizational point of view.

Potential future of the industry

Risk in the film industry occurs from not knowing which films will attract viewers,

difficulties in containing the costs of production, and piracy or theft of intellectual property

rights (Acheson & Maule, 2005). Technology directly (sound, color, television, video, DVDs),

and indirectly (communications and computer aids to management) affect how organizations and

practices react to risk. Commonly through these technologies is the act of integrating


organizationally and contractually. With the innovation of sound in film, the American market

was sustained positively from the international foreign markets since English-language movies

were widely popular throughout the globe. With exports largely higher than imports, the

expansion of Hollywood’s marketing and distribution skyrocketed. With modern technologies of

the film industry like the DVD, with its portability and cost, has created the market more

popular. Such technologies like the VHS revolutionized the movie industry, but with time, all

good things come to end. The digital era rose and created a whole spectrum of developments that

changed the movie industry for present and future consumers.

Potential developments for the future of the film industry can be presented that could

either revolutionize or threaten the industry as a whole. Ellingson (2009) shares that piracy is the

film industry’s main problem and that it will ultimately result in global economic repercussions.

Piracy is stealing, copying, or distributing movies. She states that the six major film studios that

make up the MPAA lose billions of dollars from simple piracy a year. Dan Glickman, chairman

and CEO of the MPAA states, “A lot of countries lose tax revenue due to piracy. A lot of

companies lose jobs as a result of this. And the fact of the matter is it’s got a domino effect that

affects people in other industries” (Ellingson, 2009, pg. 153). The greater the industry’s output of

product, the greater the output (sales of goods) becomes. LEK consulting’s statistics show a loss

of $6.1 billion in 2011 to piracy worldwide. Eighty percent ($4.8 billion) occurred overseas, and

obviously the remaining 20% were domestic. In comparison, China’s was the highest with 90%

of revenue losses in the market. In other words, 90 cents for every dollar that was spent was lost

to piracy instead of movie tickets or DVD sales (Ellingson, 2009). Glickman states, “We do a lot

of publicity to try to let people know that piracy is wrong, that is has a harmful impact

economically, it costs jobs, it costs revue, that it’s illegal. Our job is to try to make it so that


people know they can’t hide, and, if they do get caught, they will pay and face consequences”

(Ellingson, 2009, pg. 161).

An opposite view of piracy stands out from Geist (2009), where he declares that the film

industry’s claims of financial loss from piracy are inconsistent and that, specifically, reported

rates of camcorder piracy have not been conducted through an official audit or review. He claims

through the recently released movies on DVD, only 90 percent can be figured back to

camcording. With that said, financial loss and harm is much exaggerated, with camcording

occurring only through one in ten releases.

Future prospects of the film industry face another threat from technological advances.

Serwer (2009) is confident that the new home entertainment boom threatens movie theater

attendance. He states that because of this trend, movie theaters are going through drastic changes

like transforming into a “premium” setting. Variations including a martini bars, screen-side

services, and clear digital screens (Serwer, 2009). “Big chains like AMC and Regal

Entertainment are all grasping for a Holy Grail, a way to remake movie-going into what it once

was: an experience unlike any other” (Serwer, 2009, pg. 174). Holson (2009) states that

technologies like TiVo, video-on-demand, and advance home entertainment centers with

multichannel sound systems are one of the main contributing factors to movie-watchers staying

at home than attending theaters. In other words, the attention and excitement of people now takes

a lot more to fulfill because of the variety of technological entertainment and how much our

culture is used to these advancements. According to the MPAA, in 2004, Americans spent an

average of 78 hours watching videos and DVDs, which is a 53 percent jump since 2000 (Holson,

2009). Now, 60 percent or more homes now own a television set along with a DVD player.

Along with the cultural shift is video gaming, with playing at an increase of 20.3 percent and


$6.2 billion worth bought in 2004. Producer of Pirates of the Caribbean says, “There are a lot of

distractions. You need to pull them away from their computers. You need to pull them away

from their video games” (Holson, 2009, pg. 188). It would seem that a factor of the decline of

audiences is the attention to bring them there with “exciting” movies. With a total population of

about 141 million in 1948, movie theaters sold around four billion tickets which are about 28

movies a year on average. By 1973 ticket sales fell to 864 million, and by 2005, to about 1.4

billion. The average American now attends the movie theater less than 5 times a year with a total

population of over 300 million people. This proves clearly the amount of excitement going to the

movies is like now compared to before when it was new and upcoming. Pascal (2009) states,

“We can give ourselves every excuse for people not showing up – changing in population, the

demographic, sequels, this and that – but people just want good movies” ( pg. 188).

Conclusion

The impact of the film industry has truly changed the world in numerous aspects through

economic values, and entertainment. Throughout time, new concepts and ideas evolve, and

people adapt accordingly to different measures of innovation and knowledge. The process of

filmmaking has led to a set of organizational and contractual arrangements that have been

adapted to changing technology and have evolved throughout time to solve risks faced by the

industry. Economic governance aids in handling basic choices of human organization. Having

useful organizational functions in the firm applies if the industry has a governance structure.

Hollywood has proven to own these aspects of adapting throughout time and still influences

other countries in the industry today. Hollywood dominance of the industry, domestically and

internationally, is secure for the time being.


Bibliography

Acheson, A., Maule, C. J. (2005). Understanding Hollywood’s organization and continuing

Success. In J. Sedgwick & M. Pokorny (Ed.), An Economic History of Film (pp.312-340).

New York: Routledge.

Dahl, J., & DellaVigna, S. (2009). Movie Violence May Decrease Violent Crime.

In R. Espejo (Ed.) , The Film Industry (pp. 29-37). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Dixon, W., & Foster, G. (2011). 21st century Hollywood movies in the era of transformation.

New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Ellingson, A. (2009). Piracy Threatens the Future of the Film Industry. In R. Espejo (Ed.),

The Film Industry (pp. 152-162). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Feagin, J. R. (2009). Hollywood Films Are Racist. In R. Espejo (Ed.), The Film Industry

(pp.53-61). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Geist, M. (2009). The Piracy Threat to the Film Industry Has Been Exaggerated. In R. Espejo

(Ed.), The Film Industry (pp. 163-167). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Goldenberg, D. (2009). The Film Industry Should Not Be Blamed for At-Risk Behavior.

In R. Espejo (Ed.), The Film Industry (pp. 46-52). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Good, R. (2009). The Film Industry Has Become Over-Commercialized. In R. Espejo (Ed.),


Gunasekera, H., Chapman, S., Campbell, S. (2009). The Film Industry May Influence At-Risk

Behavior. In R. Espejo (Ed.), The Film Industry (pp. 38-45). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Holson, L. M. (2009). Home Entertainment Technologies Decrease Movie Attendance.



Lez, R., & Deloumeaux, L. (2013). Emerging markets and the digitalization of the film industry

an analysis of the 2012 uis international survey of feature film statistics. Montreal:

UNESCO.

Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (2015). Understanding The Film Rating. Retrieved

from http://www.mpaa.org/film-ratings/

Ross, M. E. (2009). Minority Representation in Hollywood Films Is Improving. In R. Espejo

(Ed.), The Film Industry (pp.62-67). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Serwer, A. (2009). Movie Theaters Are Adapting to Changes in the film Industry. In R. Espejo

(Ed.), The Film Industry (pp. 174-183). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

The History of the Hollywood Movie Industry | History Cooperative. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25,

2015, from http://historycooperative.org/the-history-of-the-hollywood-movie-industry/

Thompson, D. (2009). Movie Violence May be Harmful. In R. Espejo (Ed.) ,


Walker, J. (2009). MPAA Regulation Prevents Federal Censorship of the Film Industry.


Weintraub, J. (2009). The Level of Commercialism in the Film Industry Has Not Changed.


Williamson, O. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

Williamson, O. (Director) (2009, December 8). Transaction Cost Economics: The Natural

Progression . Price Lecture. Lecture conducted from , Berkeley.

http://www.mpaa.org/film-ratings/

film industry analysis final draft done!!!

Documents