film marketing in europe: bridging the gap between policy and practice

9
is invariably emphasised in terms of its impact on marketing, many marketing academics and practitioners neglect the role that policy plays in shaping the practice of marketing. This paper undertakes an historical analysis of protectionism in the US film industry from its inception and highlights the likely impact of similar protectionism in the European context. It also explains how Hollywood studios control domestic and international markets. The his- torical overview shows the importance of vertical integration in producing a successful marketing campaign. An exploration of the debate focus- ing on the call for liberalisation of the global audiovisual market is also undertaken from an industrial and cultural perspective to assess the possible impact that this will have upon film marketing in Europe, in addition to the implications for European cultural identity. INTRODUCTION The aim of this paper is to bridge the perceived gap between policy and the practice of film marketing in Europe. This is achieved by exploring the skewed development of theory and practice of film marketing in Europe, identifying commonly occurring research themes, problematising the double disadvantage facing non-English language independent European films and refers to the failure of academic research and policy develop- ment to offer a mechanism for change in approaches to the marketing of films in Finola Kerrigan is a lecturer in Marketing at King’s College London where she researches arts marketing, specifically the film industry. She is currently completing a PhD in marketing in the European film industry at the University of Hertfordshire Business School where she is a member of the Film Industry Research Group. Mustafa Özbilgin is Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations at the University of Surrey, School of Management. His research is in the field of cross-national and comparative employment relations, with specific focus on equal opportunities, diversity, ethics and change. ABSTRACT Concerns with US domination of European cinema screens and the apparent lack of success of policy makers to support sustainable develop- ment of the film industry has meant that these issues have remained topical for policy makers and researchers. This is also evidenced by both media attention and an increased research focus on the film industry, particularly from a marketing perspective. 1–7 To date, neither policy nor empirical research has had a significant impact on the development and understanding of the industry. This paper seeks to bridge the perceived gap between policy and the practice of film marketing in Europe. The interface between film marketing policy and practice in Europe offers an interesting venue to explore. While the macro-environment Film marketing in Europe: Bridging the gap between policy and practice Finola Kerrigan and Mustafa Özbilgin The Management Centre, King’s College London, 150 Stamford St, London, SE1 9NN; UK; Tel: 44 (0)20 7848 3882; Fax: 44 (0)20 7848 3882; e-mail: fi[email protected] Received (in revised form): 30th March, 2004 International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing Volume 9 Number 3 Page 229 International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 9No. 3, 2004, pp. 229–237. Henry Stewart Publications, 1479–103X

Upload: finola-kerrigan

Post on 15-Jun-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Film marketing in Europe: bridging the gap between policy and practice

is invariably emphasised in terms of its impacton marketing, many marketing academics andpractitioners neglect the role that policy plays inshaping the practice of marketing.

This paper undertakes an historical analysisof protectionism in the US film industry fromits inception and highlights the likely impact ofsimilar protectionism in the European context.It also explains how Hollywood studios controldomestic and international markets. The his-torical overview shows the importance of verticalintegration in producing a successful marketingcampaign. An exploration of the debate focus-ing on the call for liberalisation of the globalaudiovisual market is also undertaken from anindustrial and cultural perspective to assess thepossible impact that this will have upon filmmarketing in Europe, in addition to theimplications for European cultural identity.

INTRODUCTIONThe aim of this paper is to bridge theperceived gap between policy and thepractice of film marketing in Europe. Thisis achieved by exploring the skeweddevelopment of theory and practice offilm marketing in Europe, identifyingcommonly occurring research themes,problematising the double disadvantagefacing non-English language independentEuropean films and refers to the failure ofacademic research and policy develop-ment to offer a mechanism for change inapproaches to the marketing of films in

Finola Kerrigan is a lecturer in Marketing atKing’s College London where she researchesarts marketing, specifically the film industry. Sheis currently completing a PhD in marketing inthe European film industry at the University ofHertfordshire Business School where she is amember of the Film Industry Research Group.

Mustafa Özbilgin is Lecturer in HumanResource Management and Industrial Relationsat the University of Surrey, School ofManagement. His research is in the field ofcross-national and comparative employmentrelations, with specific focus on equalopportunities, diversity, ethics and change.

ABSTRACT

Concerns with US domination of Europeancinema screens and the apparent lack of successof policy makers to support sustainable develop-ment of the film industry has meant that theseissues have remained topical for policy makersand researchers. This is also evidenced by bothmedia attention and an increased researchfocus on the film industry, particularly from amarketing perspective.1–7 To date, neither policynor empirical research has had a significantimpact on the development and understandingof the industry. This paper seeks to bridge theperceived gap between policy and the practice offilm marketing in Europe.

The interface between film marketing policyand practice in Europe offers an interestingvenue to explore. While the macro-environment

Film marketing in Europe: Bridging thegap between policy and practice

Finola Kerrigan and Mustafa ÖzbilginThe Management Centre, King’s College London, 150 Stamford St, London, SE1 9NN; UK;Tel: �44 (0)20 7848 3882; Fax: �44 (0)20 7848 3882; e-mail: [email protected]

Received (in revised form): 30th March, 2004

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing Volume 9 Number 3

Page 229

International Journal of Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Marketing,Vol. 9 No. 3, 2004, pp. 229–237.�Henry Stewart Publications,1479–103X

Page 2: Film marketing in Europe: bridging the gap between policy and practice

Europe. Drawing on these themes, theauthors offer a number of suggestions forpractitioners and policy makers.

Durie stresses, ‘The goal of film market-ing is to maximise the audience for a filmand, by extension, its earning potential’.8

In this paper, marketing in the film in-dustry is used to refer to the entire processof marketing, starting from the emergenceof a film idea (new product development),through the production phase, the dis-tribution of the film and finally to theexhibition phase. For a full explanation ofthe structure of the film industry and theactivities involved see Kerrigan (2002).9

Often the focus is placed on the ‘market-ing campaign’ rather than the marketingprocess. Although the marketing cam-paign refers to the final stages in bringinga film to the public’s attention, this is oftenconflated with the marketing process. Partof the failure in relation to the marketingof independent European films is derivedfrom a less holistic approach with market-ing activities seen as occurring in the finalstages of the process, rather than a neces-sary consideration throughout the life ofthe film.

FAILURE OF ACADEMIC RESEARCHAs already mentioned, little academic re-search into marketing in the film industryexists and much of it only deals with theideal scenario with an overemphasis onpredicting box office success and under-standing expressed audience preferences forparticular films,4–7,10–13 rather than explor-ing the industrial reasons underlying failureand looking at how audience tastes havebeen formed. Such studies assume a levelplaying field with equal access to prints andadvertising (P&A) finance and the abilityfully to control the release pattern.

The relevant literature that exists fallsinto three main categories. First, there is abody of literature that has focused upon the

prediction of success of films in rela-tion to a number of variables that theypossess.4,7,10,14–16 The variables consideredinclude previous box office earnings of thecast, the genre, the director and the releasepattern employed by the film’s distributor.

Secondly, there is scholarly work thatfocuses upon the motivational issuesinfluencing cinema attendance and filmselection including the relationship be-tween film critics and audience filmselection.1,12–14 This literature highlightsthe impact of film critics on audiencechoice both in informing audience andshaping their tastes and in consumptionbehaviour.

Finally, a body of academic workfocuses on the structure of the filmindustry.17–20 The fragmented nature ofthe UK and also the European cinemawas problematised as a major reasonfor their continued commercial failurein competition with the US cinema.Many commentators have accepted thisdomination as a fait acompli rather than astarting point from which to build asustainable European film industry in itstotality, ie production, distribution andexhibition.

This paper seeks to explore issues ofconvergence and divergence in terms ofpolicy, practice and academic work in thearea of film marketing as although therehas been an increasing focus on the filmindustry both in terms of policy initiativesand academic research, to date, neither hasbeen fully effectual. Table 1 illustrates thefoci of the theory, policy and practice offilm marketing as well as the nature of thisconvergence and divergence.

HISTORICAL EXPLANATION OFPOLICY CONTEXTAn historical analysis of protectionismin the US film industry from its in-ception highlights the likely impact of

Film marketing in Europe

Page 230

Page 3: Film marketing in Europe: bridging the gap between policy and practice

and therefore marketing plays a key rolein the film industry in terms of increasingprofit margins.17

STRUCTURAL CONCERNSThe basic industrial structures of theEuropean industry are disjointed in com-parison to the more cohesive, verticallyintegrated American structures. The USmajors control the important worldwidedistribution networks and have a sig-nificant foothold in the exhibition sector,therefore they dominate the global filmindustry. ‘The integration of the USmajors, combined with their massive shareof the exhibition and distribution markets,places insuperable obstacles in the way ofnew entrants to those markets.’23

similar protectionism in the Europeancontext.19,21–22 It also reveals some ofthe reasons why Hollywood studios wereable to establish the stranglehold thatthey maintain over domestic and interna-tional markets. This historical overviewalso highlights the importance of verticalintegration — ownership of production,distribution and exhibition functions byone overarching company — within thefilm industry in formulating a successfulmarketing campaign. References to em-pirical research focusing on the success ofvertically integrated film companies interms of providing a cohesive market-ing message are provided.9 As shown byBlackstone and Bowman ‘the productionof films is competitive and yields lowprofit on average; yet each film is unique’

Kerrigan and Özbilgin

Page 231

Table 1: Focus, convergence and divergence of film marketing in Europe

Theory Policy Practice

Focus Scant attention tomarketing in filmindustryOveremphasis onunderstanding boxoffice success andaudience preferenceSome attention to thecritique and choice offilmLimited attention tomarketing within thestructure of the filmindustry

Providing finance forproductionRudimentary level ofinterest in culturalexpression andsustainability issuesLiberalising versusregulating the filmmarket

Focus on profitability inthe short termLittle attention tosustainabilityScant attention toaudience developmentissues

Convergence of thetheory, policy andpractice of filmmarketing

Impetus for liberalisation of the film market

Divergence of thetheory, policy andpractice of filmmarketing

Focus on predictors forsuccess

Support for projectsrather than the industryas a whole

Short-term profitabilityat the expense ofaudience development

Page 4: Film marketing in Europe: bridging the gap between policy and practice

The power of the majors over ex-hibitors emerged in the Producers Al-liance for Cinema and Television (PACT)submission to the Mergers and Monopo-lies Commission (MMC) in 1994. As themajors control the distribution of theoverwhelming majority of films in theinternational market, it is imperative thatexhibitors cooperate with them in orderto secure a constant flow of product. Theinvestigations by the MMC in the UK,the antitrust authorities in the USA andthe European Commission’s DirectorateGeneral for Competition (DG IV), to datehas not identified any proof that thisdomination is taking place unfairly. It willbe interesting to note how this developswith the continued growth of the multi-plex sector and its specific arrangementswith its parent companies in conjunctionwith further convergence in the mediasector. There are a number of reasons whythe USA gained control of the global filmindustry from an early stage.

TECHNOLOGYThe control of the technology necessaryto project film is in the hands of theAmericans. Edison’s influence in creatingthe structured industry that exists todayshould be acknowledged. By patenting hisinventions, Edison went on to controlproduction and exhibition in the earlyfilm industry, using lawsuits as a means ofprotecting his patents in the USA.22 Ascan been seen from the recent mergeractivity, and as emerged in the Uruguayround of the GATT negotiations, controlof technology is still a very importantfactor in dictating who controls the globalfilm industry.18

In addition to their control over thetechnology necessary to make and ex-hibit films, the Americans also benefitedfrom early organisation. The Trust — thename given to the Motion Picture Patents

Company which began to operate in 1909and consisted of film industry personneldetermined to gain exclusive control overproduction and distribution channels inthe industry — can be identified as thefirst monopoly to exist in the film in-dustry. In opposition to the Trust, the thenindependent companies formed a cohesiveopposition.22 It is from this oppositionthat today’s majors emerged, and theyhave remained in control of the globalfilm market ever since. With increas-ing moves towards introducing digitalmethods of distributing and exhibitingfilms, the power structures within theglobal film markets will be renegotiated asthe impact of such methods of distributionon the existing value chain is evaluated.

GATTThe film industry has been governed bytrade rules since the establishment of theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT) in 1947. From its inception,GATT acknowledged the special charac-teristics of the industry and subsequentlyawarded it special protective measures inrecognition of the difficulties faced by theindustry in the aftermath of the SecondWorld War. During the Uruguay round(1986–1994) of the GATT negotiations,there was much controversy over whetheror not the European film industries shouldbe forced to liberalise.

Although on the surface the debatefocused on the media of film and televi-sion, there were bigger stakes involved.The debate arose out of the US desire tochange the methods of regulation relat-ing to intellectual property in order tosafeguard the interests of corporate bodiesdealing with the information society aswell as the entertainment industry. Theimportance of these negotiations was dueto the expansion of the audiovisual in-dustries predicted for the future.

Film marketing in Europe

Page 232

Page 5: Film marketing in Europe: bridging the gap between policy and practice

policy makers made a commitment toliberalise their film industries to a certainextent, which means reducing the levelsof subsidies available. Whether these in-itiatives have been beneficial is ques-tionable, with industry opinion dividedover the issue. Some believe that suchincentives allow vast numbers of unwor-thy films to be produced rather thanconcentrating on improving the industry.There are various methods of supportavailable within many of the mem-ber states, most notably France, Ger-many, Italy, Ireland and the UK.19 Untilrecently, the main focus of such schemeswas upon financing production, neglect-ing the important area of distribution andtraining.

The European Commission’s MEDIAprogramme was established in order to‘improve the quality and competitivenessof the film industry and increase thedistribution of European films throughoutEurope’.26 The fragmented structure ofMEDIA I resulted in criticism of itsinadequacy to address the needs of thefilm sector. MEDIA II replaced MEDIA Iin 1995 in an attempt to concentrate onthe areas of distribution, training anddevelopment. Due to the stipulation forco-production in order to receive fund-ing from MEDIA II (and its successor,MEDIA Plus), European film makers arebeing encouraged to foster links acrossEurope.

European film makers are divided overthe benefits that subsidies have fordeveloping the film industry, but there isrecognition that there is a need to ‘protectEuropean cinema against complete an-nihilation’ by the USA.27 This inherentbelief, despite doubts about the shortcom-ings of existing systems of support, wasreflected in a joint letter released bysuccessful European filmmakers in reply toa scathing attack by Spielberg and Scorseseon the European attempt to exclude the

Primarily due to the organisation ofthe French and the role played byDavid Puttnam, a ‘cultural exception’was granted to European Communityfilmmakers. This was agreed with theproviso that they would begin liberalisingbefore the Millennium round of theWorld Trade Organisation (WTO).24 Talkson liberalisation were due to take placefrom 31st January, 2000, but due todisruptions during the Millennium round,there has been little advancement on thisposition since the end of the Uruguayround.

CULTURAL PROTECTIONDuring the GATT negotiations, the needto protect European language and culturethrough the medium of film was acknow-ledged. Global recognition and accept-ance of American language and culturalreferences give American films an auto-matic advantage over European films inthe marketplace. This lies at the heart ofEuropean attempts to safeguard their in-dustry from a cultural perspective. Thiseconomic argument is strengthened whenthe cultural role of film is explored. Aswas proved during the Uruguay roundmentioned above, film plays an importantpart in both shaping and expressing na-tional or regional identities. In fact, filmwas used as an educative tool in the USAin order to teach recent immigrants howto be good Americans.19

This need to protect their industries hasresulted in the various European countriesintroducing systems of subsidy and sup-port through such measures as tax incen-tives and lottery awards. Systems ofsubsidy for films originated in Germanyand Russia in the 1930s19 as an at-tempt to promote national socialism andthese are now established and acceptedthroughout Europe. As a result of theGATT negotiations, however, European

Kerrigan and Özbilgin

Page 233

Page 6: Film marketing in Europe: bridging the gap between policy and practice

film industry from the remit of theGATT.

European policy relating to the filmindustry has concentrated on supportingproduction and largely neglected distribu-tion, exhibition and development ac-tivities. Latterly, many European countriesincluding Britain, France, Germany andDenmark have started dealing with theseneglected aspects by revising their nationalpolicies. Development activities were alsoneglected by independent European filmmakers. This was due to the fact that inorder to develop a film, finance must beavailable to support the script writer tofinance rights acquisition if a novel is to beadapted and to pay a producer to lookinto the viability of the film.

The film industry, like other industries,does not operate in an ideal scenariovacuum. Many film industry professionalsare aware of the possibilities available tothem if resources were unlimited, butmust be realistic in compiling marketingactivities that are appropriate to the film inquestion, its target audience and mostimportantly, the support received from thedistributor in terms of the P&A budget.Film industry researchers are now recog-nising the importance of these issues incontributing to the creation of a sus-tainable film industry.2–3 It is also nowwidely recognised that with increasingcalls to liberalise the audiovisual markets,it is important to create mechanisms otherthan mainstream protectionism in order tosafeguard a future for the film industries inEurope. Due to the issues outlined here,the interface between policy and thepractice of film marketing in Europe offersan interesting venue to explore. While themacro-environment is invariably em-phasised in terms of its impact onmarketing, many marketing academicsand indeed practitioners, neglect the rolethat policy plays in shaping the practice ofmarketing.

While there is a value in ‘pure’academic investigation into film perfor-mance and audience preferences, there isa need to recognise that the usefulness ofthis type of research to the industry andpolicy makers is limited if it is notgrounded in the industrial reality of theglobal film industry. No industry operatesin ideal conditions so in order to surviveand flowish practitioner and policy makersmust be aware of the dynamics ofcompetition that exist.

In the UK, in line with many otherEuropean countries, national film policyand support structures focused uponproviding finance for production whilethe other considerations of film makers,such as protection of cultural expressionor sustainability, were ignored.2–3 In thepast, discourse surrounding support forthe film industry was polarised betweenthose arguing for protection of this formof cultural expression and the commer-cial view.19 The debate has now con-verged and while it is often convenientto couch the argument against liberalis-ing the film market in Europe in termsof cultural expression, European filmindustry professionals and policy makershave begun to see the logic in combin-ing these approaches. The film in-dustry is necessarily commercial but alsoprovides a venue for the enhancement ofcultural identity. As the film industrybecomes more and more globalised interms of ownership and finance, suchnational or regional identities are be-coming blurred. Identifying the nationalidentity or identities of particular filmsis increasingly difficult to ascertain andsome might say, pointless. Take ‘Lord ofthe Rings’ as an example; this film waspredominantly financed by Americancompanies, shot in New Zealand, basedon a British novel and has a cast ofleading actors from countries such asIreland, the UK and the USA. What is

Film marketing in Europe

Page 234

Page 7: Film marketing in Europe: bridging the gap between policy and practice

pitched to an older, art-loving audience,many of whom were shocked by itssexually explicit content. This is incontrast to the American film ‘Traffic’,which had similarly shocking scenes andwas also subtitled for the scenes that tookplace in Mexico. As this film wasmarketed as a mainstream film appealingto a young audience and the fact that asubstantial proportion of the dialogue wasin Spanish with subtitles was underplayed,the film successfully reached its targetaudience. The second disadvantage ex-perienced by non-English language filmsis their usual lack of access to mainstreamdistributors. As the Hollywood majorscontrol the majority of distribution andexhibition outlets in Europe, smallerindependent films have great difficulty insecuring screen space in cinemas.23 Whileincome from cinema exhibition is notseen as a very profitable revenue stream,this is the major showcase for films,‘theatres are the goose, even if pay-per-view is the golden egg.29 According toTaylor29 and Litman,30 box-office earningscan be used as accurate predictors forsubsequent earnings from television. Cur-rently, the number of potential revenuestreams is even greater with free and paytelevision, video and DVD rental and salesmarkets to be considered.

Considering the significant role that theintegrated nature of its film industry andfilm lobby play in the success of theUS cinema, this criticism can withoutdoubt be levelled at the film industry inEurope, which is fragmented and withouta strong identifiable political lobby. Al-though this observation is made of Europein general, France can be seen as provid-ing an exception in having a cohesiveapproach to participating in the formationof national policy, which protects theindigenous film industry and was pivo-tal in safeguarding the cultural exceptiongranted to the European film industry

the national identity of this film, anddoes that really matter?

What really matters is that the blurringof the national identities simply concealsthe domination by the US Hollywoodmajors in Europe. Why is it that people allover the world can understand streetlanguage from New York or LA butwhen faced with a subtitled film from aneighbouring country, their familiaritywith the cultural context diminishes? Filmas a medium may provide an enviableinsight into the distinct and variouscultures of the world and in doingso, illustrate the many similarities anddifferences that exist. The choice offilms that reflect such diversity, however,remains highly constrained.2–3

DISADVANTAGE OF FILMMARKETING IN EUROPEIn terms of the marketing of Europeanfilms, there is a double disadvantage.Europe is a culturally and linguisti-cally diverse region. Often cultural tastesare dictated by ease of access, bothphysical and in terms of familiaritywith a particular genre or the languageof communication. In English-speakingcountries, there is often the perceptionthat films in languages other than Englishare by definition ‘art films’ and thereforetarget a certain audience. Often thisaudience is totally different from the targetin the film’s country of origin and this mayresult in negative word of mouth, as thosewatching the film are not the in-tended audience. A recent example is ‘Ytu Mama Tambien’, a Mexican roadmovie suitable for a young, off-beataudience. While this message slowlyfiltered through, such an audience isaverse to subtitled films and therefore thefilm failed to reach its natural targetaudience. In addition, due to it playing inthe UK as a foreign language film, it was

Kerrigan and Özbilgin

Page 235

Page 8: Film marketing in Europe: bridging the gap between policy and practice

during the Uruguay round of the GATTnegotiations.27 Therefore, it is also educa-tional to highlight cross-national diver-gences in the European context.

CONCLUSIONThe European policy on film marketinghas been transforming since the late 1980s.This transformation was characterised bymoving away from a production-led em-phasis towards tackling the shortcomingsin the areas of development, training anddistribution. It is still hard, however, toclaim that this transformation was an ade-quate response to the bad practice of filmmarketing in Europe.

The film marketing experience at theEuropean level has been marred byAmerican domination and growing op-position to the European protectionism inthis field since the Uruguay round of theGATT negotiations. The European levelof good practice has filtered down tonational level and this has had a limitedbut positive impact. The difficulty facedby national policy makers is meeting theneeds of national film makers whilerecognising that the film industry is aninternational industry, subject to highlevels of competition and necessitating aninternational outlook. These tensions areoften acknowledged and often intensifiedby negative press which opposes thenational or policy support mechanisms inplace.

The impact of policy on distributionand the exhibition sector has been ex-tremely limited to date. What remains tobe considered in terms of bridging the gapbetween the policy and practice of filmmarketing is the discourse that is used toidentify the problems facing the industry.Rather than referring to cultural protec-tion, issues of identity and artistic licence,which emphasise the cottage nature of theindustry, policy makers should concentrate

on the business case for supporting thedistribution and exhibition of Europeanfilms.

REFERENCES

(1) D’Astous, A. and Colbert, F. (2002)‘Moviegoers’ consultation of criticalreviews: Psychological antecedents andconsequences’, International Journal ofArts Management, Fall.

(2) Kerrigan, F. and Özbilgin, M. (2002a)‘Art for the masses or art for the few?Ethical issues in film marketing in theUK’, International Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary sector Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 2,pp. 195–203.

(3) Kerrigan, F. and Özbilgin, M. (2002b)‘Educating Rita or freeing Willy: Anexploration of the marketer–consumerinterface in the UK film industry’,Academy of Marketing Conference,Nottingham University Business School.

(4) Elberse, A. (1999) ‘InternationalMarketing of Motion Pictures: AnAnalysis of Adoption Patterns in the USand the UK’. Working Paper, Centrefor Marketing, London Business School.

(5) Neelamegham, R. and Chintagunta, P.(1999) ‘A Bayesian model to forecastnew product performance in domesticand international markets’, MarketingScience, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.115–136.

(6) Eliashberg, J. and Shugan, S. M. (1997)‘Film critics: Influencers or predictors?Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp.68–78.

(7) Eliashberg, J. and Sawhney, M. B.(1994) ‘Modelling goes to Hollywood:Predicting individual differences inmovie enjoyment’, Management Science,Vol. 40, No. 9, pp. 1151–1173.

(8) Durie, J. (ed.) (1993) ‘The FilmMarketing Handbook: A practical guideto marketing strategies for independentfilms’, MEDIA Business School,Madrid, p. 13.

(9) Kerrigan, F. (2002) ‘Does structurematter? An analysis of the interplaybetween company structure and the

Film marketing in Europe

Page 236

Page 9: Film marketing in Europe: bridging the gap between policy and practice

Publishers Inc., New York, p. 81.(19) Kerrigan, F. and Culkin, N. (1999) ‘A

Reflection on the American Dominationof the Film Industry: An historical andindustrial perspective’, Film IndustryResearch Group Paper 4, UH BusinessSchool Working Paper Series.

(20) Litman, B. R. (1998) ‘The MotionPicture Mega-Industry’, Allyn andBacon, Needham Heights, MA.

(21) Chanan, M. (1980) ‘The Dream thatKicks, The Prehistory and Early Yearsof Cinema in Britain’, Routledge &Keegan Paul, London.

(22) Robinson, D. (1996) ‘From Peep Showto Palace, The Birth of American Film’,Columbia University Press, New York.

(23) PACT/MMC (1994) ‘FactorsInfluencing the Production, Supply andExhibition of Independent Films in theUK Market’, Bridge Media, London,p. 49.

(24) Kerrigan, F. (2004) ‘Marketing in theFilm Industry’, in Kerrigan, F., Fraser, P.and Özbilgin, M. F. ‘Arts Marketing’,Elsevier, Oxford.

(25) Dale, M. (1997) ‘The Movie Game,The Film Business in Britain, Europeand America’, Cassell, London.

(26) MEDIA Programme (1992) EuropeanCommission, Brussels, p. 5.

(27) Puttnam, D. (1997) ‘The UndeclaredWar, The Struggle for Control for theWorld’s Film Industry’, Harper CollinsPublishers, London.

(28) Wasko, J. (1994) ‘Hollywood in theinformation age: Beyond the silverscreen’, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.

(29) Taylor, R. (1976) ‘Television movies:Directors win audiences’, Journal ofBroadcasting, pp. 495–500.

(30) Litman, B. R. (1979) ‘The economicsof the television market for theatricalmovies’, Journal of Communication, Vol.29, No. 4, pp. 20–33.

marketing process in the film industry’,Academy of Marketing Conference,Nottingham University Business School.

(10) Austin, B. A. (1989) ‘ImmediateSeating: A look at Movie Audiences’,Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

(11) Austin, B. A. (1982) ‘A factor analyticstudy of attitudes toward motionpictures’, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.117, Spring, pp. 211–217.

(12) Austin, B. A. (1981a) ‘Film attendance:Why college students choose to seetheir most recent film’, Journal of PopularFilm and Television, Vol. 9, pp. 28–49.

(13) Austin, B. A. (1981b) ‘Rating themovies’, Journal of Popular Film andTelevision, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 384–399.

(14) Litman, B. R. (1983) ‘Predicting successof theatrical movies: An empiricalstudy’, Journal of Popular Culture, Vol.16, No. 4, pp. 159–175.

(15) Kimden, G. (1982) ‘Hollywood’s moviestar system: A historical overview’, inKindem, G. ‘The American movieindustry’, Southern Illinois UniversityPress, Carbondale, IL.

(16) Simonet, T. (1977) ‘Regression analysisof prior experience of key productionpersonnel as predictors of revenues fromhigh grossing motion pictures inAmerican release’, Temple UniversityPress, PA.

(17) Blackstone, E. A. and Bowman, G. W.(2002) ‘The Movie Industry: AnEconomic and Public Policy Analysisfor the 21st Century’, in Stavros, A.(ed.) ‘Advances in Communications andMedia Research’, Vol. 1, Nova SciencePublishers, New York.

(18) Blair, H. and Kerrigan, F. (2002) ‘Anew era or a recurring pattern? Ananalysis of current trends in Europeanand British film making’ in ‘Advancesin Communication and MediaResearch’, Vol. 1, Nova Science

Kerrigan and Özbilgin

Page 237