Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of film reviews on the box office performance of art house versus mainstream motion pictures

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Cultural Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Critics and their reviews can play an important role in consumer decision making in general, and film choice in particular. In this study, we propose that consumers of art house movies are being led by film reviews when making a film choice (influence effect), whereas consumers of mainstream movies are hypothesized to rely mainly on other sources of information. Thus, in the latter case the review does not influence the moviegoer, but may still be a reflection of the ultimate success of the movie (predictor effect). Using the Dutch film industry as our empirical setting, we study the effects of reviews on the opening weekend and on the cumulative box office revenue. Our research shows that the number and size of film reviews in Dutch newspapers directly influence the behavior of the art-movie-going public in their film choice. The number and size of film reviews of mainstream movies, on the other hand, only predict movie performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We do not study the market role of film distributors, as Zuckerman & Kim (2003) do, because the Dutch film distribution companies do not tend to be specialized in one type of film; in general, they distribute both art house and mainstream movies. Dutch film production organizations also tend not to have established identities in the eyes of the audience, since many of them are set up for one film project only. Dutch film theatres on the other hand, do have a clear market profile: they either predominantly show mainstream or art house movies.

  2. Another explanation may be found in method used. Eliashberg and Shugan (1997), for example, only include movies in their sample that were shown in the movie theaters for at least 8 weeks. By doing so, their results may be biased toward more successful movies, thereby downplaying the possible impact of negative reviews (we thank one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out to us).

  3. In the Netherlands, only about 14% of all moviegoers visit art house movies (Borsboom, 2001).

  4. All amounts are based on 2003 (2003 = 100). The conversion rate between the Dutch guilder and the Euro as established in 2002 has been used to convert all amounts to Euros. We used the following Price Index (source: Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics) :

    Year

    Index

    2003

    100

    2002

    98.0

    2001

    94.8

    2000

    90.7

    1999

    88.4

    1998

    86.5

  5. The figure given (79 newspapers per 100 households) includes households that are subscribed to a newspaper, households that regularly buy a newspaper, and households whom the newspaper is passed on to. This figure does not include the circulation of national newspapers that are distributed for free (i.e., Metro and Spits). Thus, the figure given is a rather conservative one.

  6. We use the findings of a research by the Dutch Film Fund (reported in Durie & Pham, 2002). In total, 37 industry insiders (movie distributors, operators of movie theaters, and movie producers) were asked which actors, actresses, and directors have star power.

  7. The production budget (BUDGET) is expressed in constant Euros (2003 = 100) according to the table in endnote 4.

  8. We did not include all our control variables in the regressions presented in Table 5 due to the limited number of observations per film type. Excluded are the control variables STAR POWER, PRIOR WORK, and ln(BUDGET). These control variables are significantly correlated (p < .01) with the variable ln(SCREEN), which we did include. When replacing the control variable ln(SCREEN) for ln(BUDGET) or for STAR POWER, these excluded variables were insignificant, while their inclusion/exclusion did not substantially alter the other coefficients. When replacing the control variable ln(SCREEN) for PRIOR WORK, this control variable was significantly correlated with early and cumulative box office revenue in the case of mainstream films (t = 2.34, p < .05 and t = 2.93, p < .01, respectively), and the SIZE REVIEW WEIGHTED variable increased in significance in the cumulative box office regression (t = 3.86, p < .01).

References

  • Albert, S. (1998). Movie stars and the distribution of financially successful films in the motion picture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22(4), 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, B. A. (1984). Portrait of an Art Film audience. Journal of Communication, 34(1), 74–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagella, M., & Becchetti, L. (1999). The determinants of motion picture box office performance: Evidence from movies produced in Italy. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basuroy, S., Chatterjee, S., & Ravid, S. A. (2003). How critical are critical reviews? The box office effects of film critics, star power, and budgets. Journal of Marketing, 67, 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, S. (2002). Marketing, cultural hierarchy, and the relevance of critics: Film in the United States, 1935–1980. Poetics, 30(4), 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordwell, D., & Thompson, K. (2001). Film art, an introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, E. (2001). NFC Bioscoopmonitor 1998–2002. Amsterdam: TNS NIPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (1978). Reviewers on reviewing. Journalism Quarterly, 55(1), 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, S. (1995). On the role of critics in the culture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 19, 321–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVany, A., & Walls, W. D. (1999). Uncertainty in the movie industry: Does star power reduce the terror of the box office? Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durie, J., & Pham, A. (2002), Selected strategies for success, How Dutch film professionals perceive their industry and general consumer habits towards national films, Dutch film fund.

  • Elberse, A., & Eliashberg, J. (2003). Demand and supply dynamics for sequentially released products in international markets: The case of motion pictures. Marketing Science, 22(3), 329–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliashberg, J., & Shugan, S. M. (1997). Film critics: Influencers or predictors? Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Film Academy. (1997). Don’t shoot the critic, pleading for a vanishing profession. Report of a workshop on film critics, Berlin.

  • Geer, C. T. (1998). Coming soon: An art theater near you. Forbes, July 6th.

  • Hennig-Thurau, T., Walsh, G., & Wruck, O. (2001). An investigation into the factors determining the success of service innovations: The case of motion pictures. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 6 (available at: www.amsreview.org/articles/henning06-2001/pdf).

  • Hirsch, P. M. (1972). Processing fads and fashions: An organizational set analysis of cultural industry systems. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 639–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, E. C., & Pieros, A. (1985). Relationships among indicators of success in broadway plays and motion pictures. Journal of Cultural Economics, 9, 35–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampel, J., & Shamsie, J. (2000). Critical push: Strategies for creating momentum in the motion picture industry. Journal of Management, 26(2), 233–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litman, B. R., & Ahn, H. (1998). Predicting Financial Success of Motion Pictures. In: B. R. Litman (Ed.), The motion picture mega-industry. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights: MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman Barry, R., & Kohl, L. S. (1989). Predicting financial success of motion pictures: The 80s experience. The Journal of Media Economics, 2, 35–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, G. (1997). Movies and manipulations, how studios punish critics. Columbia Journalism Review, January/February.

  • Miller, L. J. (1995) The Making of an ‘Independent Identity’ in the Book Trade. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.

  • Peterson, R. A., & Berger, D. G. (1975). Cycles in cultural production: The case of popular music. American Sociological Review, 40, 158–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravid, A. S. (1999). Information, blockbusters, and stars: A study of the film industry. Journal of Business, 72(4), 463–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, S. K., Swaminathan, V., & Motley, C. M. (1998). Exploring the determinants of broadway show success. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 370–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinstein, D. A., & Snyder, C. M. (2005). The influence of expert reviews on consumer demand for experience goods: A case study of movie critics. The Journal of Industrial Economics, LIII(1), 27–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, W. (1991). Critics and publics: Cultural mediation in highbrow and popular performing arts. American Journal of Sociology, 97(2), 347–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sochay, S. (1994). Predicting the performance of motion pictures. The Journal of Media Economics, 7(4), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdaasdonk, H. (1987). Effects of acquired readership and reviewers’ attention on the sales of new literary works. Poetics, 16, 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, W. T., Seigerman, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (1993). The role of actors and actresses in the success of films. Journal of Cultural Economics, 17, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijnberg, N. M., & Gemser, G. (2000). Adding value to innovation: Impressionism and the transformation of the selection system in visual arts. Organization Science, 11(3), 323–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, J. (1991). High concept, product differentiation, and the contemporary U.S. film industry. In: B. Austin (Ed.), Current research in film: Audiences, economics and law (Vol. 5) (pp. 86–105). NJ: Ablex, Norwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, R. O., & Badger, D. P. (1990). Effects of information and evaluation in film criticism. Journalism Quarterly, 67(2), 359–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, E. W., & Kim, T. Y. (2003). The critical trade-off: Identity assignment and box office succes in the feature film industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(1), 27–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zufryden, F. (2000). New film website promotion and box-office performance. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(1/2), 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zufryden, F. S. (1996). Linking advertising to box office performance of new film releases: A marketing planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, July–August, 29–41.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor of Journal of Cultural Economics for their useful suggestions to improve previous versions of this article. In addition, we would like to thank Piet Bakker (University of Amsterdam) and Tom Bakker (University of Groningen) for their help and suggestions with respect to the data collection in the newspaper industry.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, University of Groningen, Dierenriemstraat 100, 9700 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Gerda Gemser & Martine Van Oostrum

  2. Department of Communication Studies, Amsterdam School of Communications Research, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Mark A. A. M. Leenders

Authors
  1. Gerda Gemser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martine Van Oostrum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark A. A. M. Leenders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerda Gemser.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Dutch newspapers sampled

The names of the 13 Dutch newspapers included in our sample and the yearly circulation figures for the period 1998–2003 (the sampled time frame) can be found in Table 6. We included the five largest national (paid) newspapers. The circulation of these (paid) newspapers represents, on average, 95% of the total circulation of (paid) national newspapers in the period 1998–2003. We included six newspapers with a regional focus. We randomly sampled these regional newspapers from a list representing the top 15 regional newspapers in terms of circulation. The circulation of these regional (paid) newspapers represents, on average, 39% of the total circulation of the (paid) regional newspapers in the period 1998–2003. Finally, we included the two national newspapers distributed for free.

Table 6 Circulation of newspapers sampled in 1998–2003a
Full size table

In Tables 7 and 8 we describe the film review policies of the 13 Dutch newspapers sampled. The source of the information in the tables is twofold: (1) our own observations by studying the relevant film pages in the period 1998–2003 and (2) telephone interviews with film critics working for the newspapers sampled. The fifth column of Table 8, presenting the ANOVA results, shows that in the case of 10 of the 13 newspapers sampled, there is a significant difference in the size of the reviews of art house versus mainstream movies.

Table 7 Film review policy of the 13 Dutch newspapers sampled (in 1998–2003)
Full size table
Table 8 Average size of the film reviews per movie type and per newspaper sampled (in 1998–2003)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gemser, G., Van Oostrum, M. & Leenders, M.A.A.M. The impact of film reviews on the box office performance of art house versus mainstream motion pictures. J Cult Econ 31, 43–63 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-006-9025-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-006-9025-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation