Professional Documents
Culture Documents
US MOVIE Distribution
US MOVIE Distribution
ABSTRACT
Production and distribution activities in Hollywood are secured by two
main types of firms, majors and independents, complemented by a third
type represented by majors subsidiaries. The characteristics of these firms
are detailed, first, in terms of their functions within the Hollywood produc-
tion agglomeration itself, and second, in terms of their roles in external
distribution and marketing. The structure of domestic motion-picture
markets is described, with special reference to the geography of exhibition.
A statistical analysis of film releasing activity is presented. It is argued that
the industry is segmented into three overlapping market tiers, and a hypo-
thetical model of this phenomenon is proposed. Export markets for
Hollywood films are shown to have expanded greatly in recent years, partly
as a result of strategic trade initiatives underwritten by the US government.
The paper ends with a brief commentary on the cultural predicaments raised
by the globalization of Hollywood and on the sources of possible future
competitive threats to its hegemony.
KEYWORDS
Agglomeration; cultural products; globalization; media distribution;
motion-picture industry; regional development.
INTRODUCTION
In one sense, Hollywood is a very specific place in Southern California,
and, more to the point, a particular locale-bound nexus of production
relationships and local labour market activities. In another sense, Holly-
wood is everywhere, and in its realization as a disembodied assortment
of images and narratives, its presence is felt across the entire globe. These
local and global manifestations of Hollywood are linked together by a
complex machinery of distribution and marketing. In this manner, Holly-
woods existence as a productive agglomeration is sustained, while the
Review of International Political Economy
ISSN 0969-2290 print/ISSN 1466-4526 online 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk
DOI: 10.1080/0969229042000179758
RRIP100150.fm Page 34 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
Sectoral structures
According to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
that came into effect in 1997, the sectors making up the motion-picture
industry can be described under four principal headings. These are:
NAICS 5121101: Motion picture production, except for television.
NAICS 5121201: Motion picture film exchanges (representing the distri-
bution segment of the industry).
NAICS 51213: Motion picture and video exhibition.
NAICS 51219: Post-production and other motion-picture and video
industries (representing the main providers of service inputs to produc-
tion as a whole).
Data on receipts, establishments, and employment for these sectors in
the US and Los Angeles County for the year 1997 are set forth in Table 1.2
The data in Table 1 indicate clearly that Los Angeles is the dominant centre
of the US motion-picture industry at large, except for exhibition, which,
as we would expect, is widely diffused across the country. Los Angeles
scores highly on total receipts and employment as a percentage of US
totals, and all the more so because it is the home base of numerous large
35
RRIP100150.fm Page 36 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
Table 1 Receipts and employment in the motion-picture industry, US and Los Angeles County, 1997
NAICS 5121101 (motion-picture 10,040 7,478 74.5 4,733 1,249 26.4 49,890 31,828 63.8
production, except for television)
NAICS 5121201 (Motion-Picture 9,211 5,366 58.3 477 165 34.6 7,744 3,488 45.0
Film Exchanges)
NAICS 51213 (motion-picture and 7,597 685 9.0 6,358 364 5.7 125,041 9,752 7.8
video exhibition)
NAICS 51219 (post-production and other 4,528 2,088 46.1 3,378 983 29.1 33,205 13,232 39.8
motion-picture and video industries)
Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Economic Census, 1997.
RRIP100150.fm Page 37 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
extended over much of the 1960s and 1970s, was marked by a transforma-
tion of the so-called old Hollywood, centred on the vertically integrated
studio system, to a new Hollywood characterized by much more vertically
disintegrated production processes and significant externalization of
many of the detailed tasks of film-making (Blackstone and Bowman, 1999;
Hozic, 2001; Storper and Christopherson, 1987). The basic motion-picture
production complex of Hollywood today can be characterized as a dense
constellation of many interdependent firms and workers, functioning
together in a project-oriented work environment, along with a variety of
institutional arrangements providing different sorts of coordinating
services. The whole structure of agglomerated activity generates massive
external economies of scale and scope providing a constant flow of
competitive advantages to each individual firm (Scott, 2002; Storper and
Christopherson, 1987).
More specifically, the kernel of the complex is constituted by shifting
networks of specialized but complementary firms engaged in many
different phases of film-making, with both the majors (dominantly) and
independent production companies (vastly more numerous but with
much less commercial leverage) as the central organizing agents. The
production process itself is project-oriented in the sense that networks of
firms and individuals come together around particular joint tasks, only to
fall apart as the tasks are completed, and to re-appear in some other shape
as new projects are identified (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998; Grabher, 2001).
This kernel is complemented by an elaborate system of local labour
markets in which an enormous diversity of skills and aptitudes is
mobilized in the daily round of work. In keeping with the project-oriented
structure of production, many of the workers caught up in the industry
even highly skilled and highly remunerated individuals hold only
temporary jobs or freelance engagements, and circulate with some
frequency through the entire system. The whole agglomeration is under-
pinned by a tightly knit institutional fabric, comprising on the one side
powerful trade organizations such as the MPAA, the Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences (which organizes the annual Academy Awards),
the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, the American
Film Marketing Association (AFMA), and on the other side representa-
tives of both professional and craft labour such as the Directors Guild, the
Producers Guild, the Screen Actors Guild, the Writers Guild, and the
numerous specialized locals of IATSE (the International Alliance of Theat-
rical Stage Employees). Within the vortex of activity represented by the
agglomeration as a whole, many-sided human interactions and exchanges
of information occur at frequent intervals, and these forms of contact
typically represent important sites of creativity and innovation (Scott,
2000).
These diverse elements of the Hollywood complex all contribute to its
38
RRIP100150.fm Page 39 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
effort needed to distribute films, for actually moving reels of film from
point a to point b is a comparatively easy task. Concentration in the
distribution side of the business is rather a function of the need to maintain
continuous and extensive contact with large numbers of different theatre
chains, and to coordinate placement of any one film in theatres across the
country and the world according to a tight schedule of release dates.
Levels of concentration are further boosted by the need to back up distri-
bution, as such, with massive marketing campaigns, and, above all, to
generate sufficient publicity nationally and locally for each film so that the
opening weekend brings in significant threshold box-office returns. In
order to secure these objectives, the majors all maintain branch offices in
critical regional markets, thereby facilitating close and steady contact with
theatre operators. Figure 1 displays the location of these branch offices in
the US and Canada. All of them coincide with metropolitan areas in states
or provinces where large numbers of theatre screens are to be found.
On the basis of information gathered in face-to-face interviews with
representatives of distribution companies, we can characterize the inter-
actions between these branch offices and the theatre chains with which
they deal as a form of relational contracting. This signifies that both parties
to any given transaction have long-term relations built on strong personal
familiarity, in contradistinction to purely arms-length dealings.4
40
RRIP100150.fm Page 41 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
42
RRIP100150.fm Page 43 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
Table 4 Domestic theatrical film distribution, market shares of Hollywood majors, 19802000
Buena Vista/ Columbia/ Dreamworks MGM Paramount 20th C Fox Universal Warner
Disney Sony
1980 4 14 7 16 16 20 14
1985 3 10 9 10 11 16 18
1990 16 5 3 15 14 14 13
1995 19 13 6 10 8 13 17
2000 15 9 10 1 11 10 15 12
Source: National Association of Theatre Owners, Encyclopedia of Exhibition, 20012002.
RRIP100150.fm Page 44 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
Figure 2 Number of new feature films released annually in the US since 1945.
Published data on releases by independent distribution companies are available
only since 1980. Note that releases by majors include films released by their
subsidiaries; also, releases by majors include films produced by majors, their
subsidiaries, and independent production companies
Source: Motion-Picture Association of America (http://www.mpaa.org/).
46
RRIP100150.fm Page 47 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
Table 7 Regression equations showing the effects of box-office returns and interest
rates on temporal variations in films released by independents, majors
subsidiaries, and majors, 19802000 (see text for definitions of variables)
47
RRIP100150.fm Page 48 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
A tripartite model?
Reference has frequently been made in all of the above to an essentially
bipartite pattern of production-consumption relations in the motion-
picture industry, revolving around the split between majors and inde-
pendents. Only an occasional acknowledgment of a possibly distinctive
role for the majors subsidiaries has thus far been offered. In fact, since the
early 1980s, and especially since the early 1990s, there has been a marked
tendency for this group of companies to emerge as a peculiar domain of
activity in its own right.
Today, every major has a larger or smaller stable of these subsidiaries,
most of which act as quasi-independent production and distribution
entities and possess a high degree of autonomy in their corporate decision-
making. In this regard, the majors are coming increasingly to resemble the
music majors that pioneered this form of corporate strategy (Negus, 1998;
Scott, 1999). These subsidiaries function within a range of intermediate
markets lying between those in which the majors proper operate and those
in which the independents are typically ensconced. They also represent a
sort of advance guard for the majors by reason of their more experimental
approaches to the motion-picture business and their consequent ability to
capture and shape emerging talent and trends. Among the more important
subsidiaries with a substantial stake in distribution activity at the present
time are Disneys Miramax, Sony Classics, Warners New Line, MGMs
Orion Pictures, Twentieth-Centurys Fox Searchlight, Universal Focus and
Paramount Classics.
Figure 3 provides some empirical details as to how the conjectured
tripartite structure of US motion-picture production and markets is
arranged. The figure shows frequency distributions of percentage box-
office returns for films distributed by (a) independents, (b) majors sub-
sidiaries, and (c) majors (less subsidiaries). These percentage figures sum
48
RRIP100150.fm Page 49 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
to 100 within each of the three types of distribution system. The x-axis of
Figure 3 is drawn on a logarithmic scale in order to facilitate visual
comparison of all the information available. What is immediately striking
about the figure is the clear separation of each frequency distribution into
lower, middle, and upper market segments. These three segments are
sharply divided from one another in terms of the average box-office
returns attributable to each. As Table 8 reveals, the average box office for
independents was $3.8 million in the year 2000, for subsidiaries it was
$14.3 million, and for majors $55.6 million.7 A t-test indicates that these
values are all different from one another at extremely high levels of statis-
tical confidence. In the same year, the average number of films distributed
by each type of firm was 2.0, 8.6, and 14.3, respectively, though there is
much variance around these values. From these data it is apparent that
the majors subsidiaries (together with a few selected independents) are
carving out a very definite middle-range market niche for themselves.
Concomitantly, whenever any independent begins consistently to contest
49
RRIP100150.fm Page 50 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
Export markets
Right from the beginnings of Hollywood a century ago, American motion
pictures have found ready markets in other countries. Since World War II,
this export flow has expanded dramatically, and today the presence of
Hollywood is felt virtually around the world (Hoskins et al., 1997; Miller
et al., 2001; Wildman and Siwek, 1988).
Data on US film and tape rental exports to other countries between the
years 1986 and 2001 are laid out in Table 9. The data refer to videotape
rentals as well as motion-picture distribution overseas and they cover all
US exports in these services. These rentals have grown with notable vigour
over the last 15 years or so, and they now exceed the domestic box-office
by a considerable margin. Whereas the gross domestic box office for
motion pictures increased (in constant dollar terms) by 40.9 percent from
$5,970 in 1986 to $8,413 million in 2001, exports of film and tape rentals
over the same period increased by 452.8.0 percent from $1,683 million to
$9,304 million. Table 9 informs us that by far the main importers of the
products of Hollywood are the European countries. The UK, Germany,
and the Netherlands alone account for 36.7 percent of all rental exports
from the US. Japan and Canada, too, are major importers, as are Australia,
Brazil and the Republic of Korea.
The majors maintain extensive distribution and marketing networks not
only in North America, but also in other countries. Through their multi-
national operations the majors directly control distribution systems in all
their principal foreign markets, as well as in many more secondary
markets. United International Pictures, for example, is a joint venture of
Universal and Paramount, which owns distribution facilities in as many
as 37 different countries including the UK, France, Germany, the Nether-
lands, Australia and Japan, as well as in less lucrative territories like
Hungary, Chile, Peru, the Philippines, and Thailand. Twentieth-Century
Fox owns 21 foreign distribution facilities in an equally diverse set of
countries. In countries where the majors do not actually own a distribution
network outright they often enter into joint ventures or long-term
53
RRIP100150.fm Page 54 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
Table 9 US exports in the form of film and tape rentals; percentage values by
destination
54
RRIP100150.fm Page 55 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
A FORWARD GLANCE
For almost a century, and especially since the World War II, Hollywood
has dominated national and international motion-picture markets. It has
accomplished this record of success partly on the basis of the well-
lubricated, large-scale production machine of Hollywood itself (with its
unparalleled ability to cater to popular audiences), and partly on the basis
of the industrys early perfection of its capacity to distribute films to mass
markets across the nation and across the world.
With the advent of new electronic distribution technologies, Hollywood
is again facing a major paradigm shift that may well have important
impacts on the way it and its competitors do business in the future. These
technologies will in all likelihood make it eventually possible to dispatch
films directly and cheaply to the individual consumer. In this respect, we
may perhaps derive some clues about the future of film markets from
events in the television industry where deregulation and technological
change have allowed programmes and distribution channels to proliferate
over the last couple of decades (Brown, 1996; Staiger, 2000). On the one
hand, then, consumers choices will almost certainly continue to be shaped
in significant ways by a limited number of firms with the resources to
mount extravagant marketing campaigns, so that even if the audiences for
blockbuster films stabilize or shrink (just as ratings for top television
shows have tended to decline over the 1980s and 1990s) the phenomenon
of high-revenue films at the top end of the market is likely to continue. On
the other hand, the development of new delivery systems will in principle
open up the market to more effective contestation by smaller independent
film production and distribution companies (cf. Leyshon, 2001). Thus, the
eventual attainment of film distribution by means of the internet will no
doubt give rise to a great increase in the amount of cinematic material
available to consumers, thereby widening the market and almost certainly
making inroads on blockbuster audiences. Additionally, there are credible
arguments for suggesting that foreign film industries might be re-entering
the competitive foray, not only on the basis of revivified local production
clusters, but also of enhanced distributional and marketing capacities
aided by the rise of home-grown media conglomerates. Hollywood can
never rest on its laurels.
58
RRIP100150.fm Page 59 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
NOTES
1 This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant
number BCS-0091921, with supplementary funding from the Haynes
Foundation.
2 These data are taken from the 1997 Economic Census. Unfortunately, data for
the 2002 Economic Census are not yet available.
3 The n-firm concentration ratio in any given sector is the percentage of total
receipts earned by the top n firms in that sector.
4 The complicated accounting relations that typically exist between motion-
picture distributors and exhibitors are described in Cones (1997).
5 A total of 122 firms responded to the questionnaire. Of these, 55 had made a
feature film in the previous year.
6 These remarks offer a somewhat more nuanced view of the relations between
large and small firms than the one identified by Berger and Piore (1980) in
terms of industrial duality. In Berger and Piores concept, large and small
firms are functionally distinctive entities occupying distinctive market niches,
the former serving a residuum of stable demands, the latter being relegated to
a more unstable market spectrum. In the present instance, there is a zone of
overlap in which large firms appear to use smaller firms as a means of ensuring
synchronic stability of product flow.
7 Observe that the ratio of 14.3 to 3.8 is almost identical to the ratio of 55.6 to 14.3.
8 Data for this exercise were obtained from <http://www.worldwideboxoffice.
com/>.
9 The same piece of legislation permits block-booking by American motion-
picture distributors on foreign markets. This practice is expressly forbidden on
domestic markets by antitrust legislation.
REFERENCES
AMPAS (2001) Annual Index to Motion Picture Credits (2000 Edition), Beverly Hills,
CA.: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Berger, S. and Piore, M. J. (1980) Dualism and Discontinuity in Industrial Societies,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackstone, E. A. and Bowman, G. W. (1999) Vertical integration in motion
pictures, Journal of Communication, 49: 12339.
Brown, L. (1996) Technology transforms, in L. S. Gray and R. L. Seeber (eds) Under
the Stars: Essays on Labor Relations in Arts and Entertainment, Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Chandler, A. D. (1990) Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism,
Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press.
Cones, J. W. (1997) The Feature Film Distribution Deal, Carbondale and Edwards-
ville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Daly, D. A. (1980) A Comparison of Exhibition and Distribution Patterns in Three Recent
Feature Motion Pictures, New York: Arno Press.
de Vany, A. and Walls, W. D. (1997) The market for motion pictures: rank, revenue,
and survival, Economic Inquiry, 35: 78397.
DeFillippi, R. J. and Arthur, M. B. (1998) Paradox in project-based enterprise: the
case of film-making, California Management Review, 40: 12539.
Grabher, G. (2001) Locating economic action: projects, networks, localities, insti-
tutions, Environment and Planning A, 33: 132931.
59
RRIP100150.fm Page 60 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
Guback, T. H. (1969) The International Film Industry: Western Europe and America
since 1945, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hoskins, C. McFadyen, S. and Finn, A. (1997) Global Television and Film: An Intro-
duction to the Economics of the Business, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hozic, A. A. (2001) Hollyworld: Space, Power and Fantasy in the American Economy,
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Leyshon, A. (2001) Time-space (and digital) compression: software formats,
musical networks, and the reorganization of the music industry, Environment
and Planning A, 33: 4977.
Litman, B. and Ahn, H. (1998) Predicting financial success of motion pictures: the
early 90s experience, in B. Litman (ed.) The Motion-Picture Mega Industry,
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 17297.
Miller, T., Govil, N., McMurria, J. and Maxwell, R. (2001) Global Hollywood, London:
British Film Institute.
Monitor (1999) US Runaway Film and Television Production Study Report, Santa
Monica: Monitor Company.
NATO (2002) Encyclopedia of Exhibition, 20012002, North Hollywood, CA.:
National Association of Theatre Owners.
Negus, K. (1998) Cultural production and the corporation: musical genres and the
strategic management of creativity in the US recording industry, Media,
Culture and Society, 20: 35979.
Prince, S. (2000) A New Pot of Gold: Hollywood under the Electronic Rainbow,
19801989, New York: Charles Scribners Sons.
Robins, J. A. (1993) Organization as strategy: restructuring production in the film
industry, Strategic Management Journal, 14: 10318.
Rosen, D. and Hamilton, P. (1987) Off-Hollywood: The Making and Marketing of
Independent Films, New York: Grove Weidenfeld.
Scott, A. J. (1999) The US recorded music industry: on the relations between
organization, location, and creativity in the cultural economy, Environment
and Planning A, 31: 196584.
Scott, A. J. (2000) The Cultural Economy of Cities: Essays on the Geography of Image-
Producing Industries, London: Sage.
Scott, A. J. (2002) A new map of Hollywood: the production and distribution of
American motion pictures, Regional Studies, 36: 95775.
Segrave, K. (1997) American Films Abroad: Hollywoods Domination of the Worlds
Movie Screens, Jefferson, NC.: McFarland.
Staiger, J. (2000) BlockbusterTV: Must-See Sitcoms in the Network Era, New York: New
York University Press.
Storper, M. and Christopherson, S. (1987) Flexible specialization and regional
industrial agglomerations: the case of the US motion-picture industry, Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 77: 26082.
Tyson, L. D. (1992) Whos Bashing Whom? Trade Conflict in High-Technology Indus-
tries, Washington, DC.: Institute for International Economics.
Veronis Suhler (2001) Communications Industry Forecast, New York: Veronis Suhler
Media Merchant Bank, 15th edition.
Vogel, H. L. (1998) Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wasko, J., Phillips, M. and Purdie, C. (1993) Hollywood meets Madison Avenue:
the commercialization of US films, Media, Culture and Society, 15: 27193.
Wildman, S. S. and Siwek, S. E. (1988) International Trade in Films and Television,
Cambridge, MA.: Ballinger.
Wildman, S. S. and Siwek, S. E. (1993) The economics of trade in recorded media
60
RRIP100150.fm Page 61 Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:18 AM
61