Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 13 November 2014, At: 11:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Promotion ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20
Exploring Art Film Audiences: AMarketing AnalysisSharon L. H. Chuu a , Jennifer C. Chang b & Judith L. Zaichkowsky ba Charlottetown, P.E.I. , Canadab Simon Fraser University , British Columbia, CanadaPublished online: 29 May 2009.
To cite this article: Sharon L. H. Chuu , Jennifer C. Chang & Judith L. Zaichkowsky (2009) ExploringArt Film Audiences: A Marketing Analysis, Journal of Promotion Management, 15:1-2, 212-228, DOI:10.1080/10496490902835688
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496490902835688
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Promotion Management, 15:212–228, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1049-6491 print / 1540-7594 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10496490902835688
Exploring Art Film Audiences:A Marketing Analysis
SHARON L. H. CHUUCharlottetown, P.E.I., Canada
JENNIFER C. CHANG and JUDITH L. ZAICHKOWSKYSimon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada
The question of whether art film lovers have different movie con-sumption patterns than commercial film audiences is examinedin this study. Art film audiences are found to warrant marketingattention because they are more committed to movie attendance,have a more favorable attitude towards movies in general, and aremore tolerant towards movie theater conditions than commercialfilm audiences.
KEYWORDS art films, audiences, film industry, marketing,movies
INTRODUCTION
There have been many studies on the motion picture product category in thequantitative marketing literature (e.g., Eliashberg & Sawhney, 1994; Sawhney& Eliashberg, 1996; Krider & Weinberg, 1998; Neelamegham & Jain, 1999;Swami, Eliashberg, & Weinberg, 1999; Eliashberg, Swami, Weinberg, &Wierenga, 2001; Elberse & Eliashberg, 2003; Weinberg, 2003). These stud-ies focus on analyzing data of consumption patterns, mainly of commercialfilms, to predict the life of box office receipts. However, there is only limitedbehavioral research on art films (e.g., Smythe, Lusk, & Lewis, 1953; Adler,1959; Vahemetsa, 1970; Austin, 1984; Faber, O’Guinn, & Hardy, 1988) andmost of these studies were performed by scholars in the communicationsfield and designed to provide comprehensive reports on how consumersviewed and used the media.
Address correspondence to Judith Zaichkowsky, Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Busi-ness Administration, Simon Fraser University, 500 Granville St., Vancouver, V6C 1W6, Canada.E-mail: [email protected]
212
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Exploring Art Film Audiences 213
In contrast to commercial films that tailor to the taste of mass con-sumers, the art film market targets specific groups of consumers and maybecome more important within our society. According to researchers, theseconsumers take movies more seriously (e.g., Austin, 1984) and exhibit a pat-tern of cultural consumption including activities such as attending classicalmusic concerts, operas, plays, lectures, and the ballet (e.g., Adler, 1959). Artfilm audiences warrant special attention because the understanding of theseconsumers’ motivations for consumption may lead to changes in the focusand mix of films produced which underscore our society. Only recently hasWatson (2006) tried to develop a scale to measure and predict the behaviorof independent film audiences.
The importance of the art film market is realized as most of the bigstudios have bought independent studios. In addition, some theater-chainsbelieve that the art and specialty niche is growing faster than the wholemovie industry, reflected by Onex Corp’s acquisition of Landmark Theatresand Silver Cinemas for USD $80.5 million in a move that broadens Onex’stheater-chain empire into the art-film market (Onex Corp. cinema chains,2002). The increasing importance theaters today place on the art film marketindicates the need to better understand art film audiences and, yet, there islimited research done on art film audiences.
To expand and contribute to the existing literature, this study aims to ex-plore the nature of art film audiences from a consumer behavior perspectiveand to demonstrate the value of the art film market accordingly. Four dimen-sions of movie patrons are investigated: 1) commitment to movie attendance;2) attitudes towards movies in general; 3) tolerance towards movie theaterconditions; and 4) interest in movie-affiliated merchandise. From a consumerbehavior perspective, this study may lend insight to the importance and in-fluence of different market segments to the direction of the movie industryin the future.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Defining Art Films
Ensign and Knapton’s The complete dictionary of television and film (1985)defines an art film as “an avant-garde or experimental film that uses bizarreor new techniques of production, plot or performance” or “an informationalfilm about or revolving around one of the major art forms.” It further definesan experimental film as “an independently produced film, usually noncom-mercial that reflects the filmmaker’s personal vision in technique or storyline; usually expressing a unique and sometimes bizarre artistic viewpoint”(p. 19). Irving (1995) defines an art film as “a film made by an independentfilmmaker, often on a modest production budget and without stars, and dis-tributed as a genre film” (p. 82). Art films are generally considered to include
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
214 S. L. H. Chuu et al.
foreign films (e.g., In the Mood for Love by Wong, Kar-Wai in 2000), filmsby independent producers (e.g., Frankie Starlight by Michael Lindsay-Hoggin 1995), documentaries (e.g., The Brandon Teena Story by Susan Muska in1998), and classic “re-releases” (e.g., Rashomon by Akira Kurosawa in 1950).
Art films are frequently selected to be shown at major film festivalsand are often the winners of distinctive film awards. Many of these films aremade in non-English speaking countries (e.g., France, Italy, Germany, Japan,China), and accompanied by English subtitles. (From the industry perspec-tive, foreign films are referred to as non-American movies.) In terms of thetheatrical release of art films, they are screened primarily in art-house andrepertoire theaters only. This specific type of theater was located in collegetowns and run-down areas of large cities when they first appeared in the1940s (Wilinsky, 1996). Since the 1980s, when multiplex theaters becamepopular, art films have gradually received more distribution in regular the-aters in all types of towns and neighborhoods. These films supplement thelimited number of new mainstream movies available at one point in time foruse in the multiplex theaters (Faber et al., 1988). However, their distributionby comparison to commercial films remains very limited.
Defining Commercial Films
In contrast to art films, commercial films are those films whose sole aimis to entertain the public and make a profit. The contents of commer-cial films are particularly tailored to the taste of mass consumers. Thesemovies are primarily from Hollywood and are the specialty of major studiossuch as Sony Picture Entertainment (including Columbia Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group (owned by the WaltDisney Company, including Walt Disney Pictures), Paramount Pictures, 20thCentury Fox, NBC Universal Entertainment (including Universal Studios), andWarner Brothers Entertainment, to name the major few.
These major studios, which are all owned by large conglomerates,have sufficient capital resources to control all stages of the filmmaking pro-cess. This capacity to handle the entire process of filmmaking—from thedevelopment of the original idea through the distribution of the finishedpicture—gives commercial films enormous marketing advantages (Durie,Pham, & Watson, 2000). These films are usually presold before their pro-duction is finished; few films in the art-house sector are presold unless thedirector has an established reputation. In most cases, commercial films areguaranteed at least a limited release in a cinema chain in which the re-spective Hollywood studio has an interest. Commercially successful films aredistributed more widely through a variety of theater chains. In order to as-sess the potential profit of releasing a new film, the major studios have also
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Exploring Art Film Audiences 215
developed models to calculate a film’s box-office potential based on trackrecords of its stars, director, and genre in various geographic areas.
Differences in Consumption
In short, art films are those films that lie outside the boundaries definingmainstream Hollywood productions. The differences between these twotypes of films include the content, style, production, distribution, and, ofcourse, audiences (Austin, 1984). Faber et al. (1988) suggested that art filmsrepresent the least radical departure from the commercial mainstream thanother alternatives such as cult films and X-rated movies.
The results of these studies indicate that art film audiences are character-ized by certain qualities. Some of these qualities are consistent across studies,whereas others contradict with one another. A general conclusion indicatesthat art film audiences go to the movies because they like the movies, notbecause they use movies for other purposes such as social gatherings. In ad-dition, movies deliver more benefits than entertainment to them (Vahemetsa,1970). Regarding the demographics of art film audiences, the results indicatethat art film audiences tended to be well-educated, including more men thanwomen, and were more likely to be single (Smythe et al., 1953; Adler, 1959).Other studies showed no difference in gender (e.g., Austin, 1984).
As for art film audiences’ hobbies and interests, they demonstrated acultural consumption pattern. They tended to prefer foreign movies andserious dramas to other types of films (Smythe et al., 1953). They were morelikely than commercial film audiences to attend classical music concerts,operas, plays, lectures, and the ballet. They were more likely to listen toradio stations that focused on broadcasting classical music than commercialaudiences. They had greater interest in public affairs than mass audiences(Adler, 1959). Art film audiences were more print oriented in comparison tothe commercial film audiences, who were more television oriented (Faberet al., 1988).
As for attitudes towards movies, art film audiences were more seriousabout movies and were found to be more likely than commercial filmgoersto report movie-going as their favorite leisure activity. They perceived theart house theater as offering a diversity of high-quality films unavailableelsewhere (Austin, 1984). In choosing movies, art film audiences tended tobe influenced by critics’ reviews more so than personal recommendationsthan audiences who attended art films less regularly (Smythe et al., 1953;Austin). They cared more about the producer or director than the actors;they were also much less dependent on advertising in nearly all media formovie information than the commercial film audiences were (Smythe et al.;Adler, 1959; Faber et al., 1988). In terms of attendance, art film audienceswere more likely to plan ahead to see a movie than commercial filmgoers.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
216 S. L. H. Chuu et al.
They also tended to see a movie alone or with fewer people than commercialfilmgoers (Austin; Faber et al.).
Summary and Hypotheses
Previous studies demonstrate that art film audiences predominantly consti-tuted an avid movie-going group and tended to see movies more often thancommercial film audiences. Their movie attendance also seemed to be higherthan that of commercial film audiences (Smythe et al., 1953). Similarly, Faberet al. (1988) suggested that the art film audiences attend movies more fre-quently than general audiences do; therefore, the following hypothesis willbe tested:
H1: Art film audiences attend movies more often than commercial filmaudiences.
Austin (1984) suggested that art film audiences are more likely to attendmovies alone. Faber et al.’s study (1988) showed that commercial film audi-ences are more likely to attend a movie “to be with spouse or date” or “tohave something to do with others “ or because “someone asked me to go”. Inother words, art film audiences are more likely to attend movies for the sakeof the movies, while commercial film audiences tend to attend movies forreasons other than the movie itself. It seems that art film audiences tend todemonstrate self-determined initiative in their movie-going behavior whilecommercial film audiences tend to show passive, other-determined initia-tive. Therefore, we assume that the frequency of art film audiences’ movieattendance is less likely to be influenced by the other people and propose asecond hypothesis:
H2: Art film audiences are more likely to attend movies alone than com-mercial film audiences.
Austin (1984) indicated that attending a movie is a purposeful behaviorfor art film audiences. They take it seriously, plan ahead of time, and theirdecisions are based on specific films. Adler (1959) further concluded thatart film audiences were more likely than commercial film audiences to havesome idea of the content of movies they were about to see. At the sametime, if not much is known about the movies, art film audiences are morewilling to see movies they know very little about than commercial filmaudiences. Chamberlin (1960) found that art film audiences would go tofilms solely on the basis that they were art films. It is also possible that thesepeople established viewing art films as a long-term activity when they wereyoung. This in turn suggests that art film audiences are more loyal to movies
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Exploring Art Film Audiences 217
and consider movie-going more important as an element of their life thancommercial film audiences, and we further hypothesize:
H3: Art film audiences consider movie-going more important in their lifethan commercial film audiences.
Vahemetsa (1970) classified art film audiences into several types. The“cultural-prestige type” of art film audience considers film to be a specificphenomenon of culture. Further, the “first cognitive type” of art film audienceconsiders movies to be a source of information important to their knowledgeand experience of life. The “second cognitive type” of art film audiencesconsiders movie-going a way to disentangle themselves from everyday realityand a find a more beautiful life. In addition, the “aesthetic type” of artfilm audience considers film to be an autonomous aesthetic phenomenonand a creative product. The previous descriptions are consistent with theconclusion of Faber et al. (1988): art film audiences perceive movie-goingas a more intellectual experience, and commercial film audiences tend towatch movies as one kind of entertainment or a way to pass time.
Vahemetsa (1970) also reported that commercial film audiences do notperceive films as holding any particular cultural value. The value of filmsis based on their ability to satisfy needs for relaxation, companionship, andentertainment. Therefore it can be hypothesized that:
H4: Art film audiences hold a more favorable attitude towards movies ingeneral than commercial film audiences.
Previous studies have shown that movie theater conditions are not gen-erally a primary concern of art film audiences in deciding which movietheaters to attend. The finding from Adler (1959) indicated that art film au-diences primarily determined the selection of movie theaters by the picturesthey show, while commercial film audiences were more likely to considerthe convenient location of the theater or its interior facilities. Austin (1984)also confirmed that the main concern of art film audiences when decidingupon movie attendance is the quality of the movies. He further stated thatthey perceived the art-house theaters as a great opportunity to see moviesnot normally shown in other theaters. The location of most of the art-housetheaters is not as convenient as the location of commercial theaters, whichare mostly inside or right beside large shopping malls. Art-house theaters aregenerally less accessible than commercial theaters. Therefore we hypothe-size:
H5: The convenient location of movie theaters is less important to artfilm audiences than to commercial film audiences in deciding their movieattendance.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
218 S. L. H. Chuu et al.
In addition to location, the facilities of most art-house theaters are not asfancy and comfortable as of commercial theaters. Consequently, it is impliedthat people who attend art-house theaters are tolerant of less than idealtheater conditions. Therefore, we test:
H6: The facilities of movie theaters (e.g., sound, seating, beverage/snackservice, washrooms, and parking) are less important to art film audiencesthan to commercial film audiences in deciding their movie attendance.
Previous studies demonstrate that art film audiences watch films withpassion and have the desire to know more about the movies. In Austin’s re-search (1984), respondents reported a high level of enjoyment reading intro-ductory comments about films before their screening. They indicated an in-terest in obtaining additional supplementary background information as well.Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that art film audiences might have ahigher interest in purchasing movie-affiliated merchandises. Movie-affiliatedmerchandises, such as novels from which screenplays were adapted, sound-tracks, posters, or videos containing additional information about moviesshould be appealing to art film audiences. We, therefore, developed thehypothesis:
H7: Art film audiences have a higher interest in purchasing movie-affiliated merchandise (e.g., movie posters, soundtracks, original novels,videos, VCDs, DVDs) than commercial film audiences.
METHODOLOGY
Data was collected through surveying respondents in four movie theaters ina major west coast city during evening hours while patrons waited in line(90–125 respondents from each theater). For the purposes of investigatingthe characteristics of art film audiences, the subjects were sampled from onetheatre with an emphasis on art-films; two theaters which show both artand commercial films, and to have a sample of commercial films goers forcontrast, a chain theater of Cinemark USA was also sampled. Answering thequestionnaire took about 5–10 minutes and to encourage participation, alottery draw for a $25 gift certificate was provided.
The Questionnaire
The initial questionnaire was pretested on a sample of 20 graduate studentswho were regular moviegoers. The pretest revealed one major point of con-cern. Art films are classified according to production companies outside of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Exploring Art Film Audiences 219
mainstream Hollywood, but most respondents are not very knowledgeableabout specific production companies. However most people could usuallyrecall the theaters they have attended and theaters usually have a definitescreening policy (they either show only commercial films or art films). There-fore, movie theaters constituted a clear criterion to help respondents classifyart films and commercial films.
The final version of the questionnaire consisted of 35 questions dealingwith behaviors and attitudes of movie attendance. To make sure all re-spondents understood and equally interpreted art versus commercial films,the first page of the questionnaire defined art films as “those that lie out-side the mainstream Hollywood system including independent films, foreignfilms and documentaries” and commercial films as “mainstream HollywoodMovies” and listed the various cinemas in the city that screen the differenttypes of films.
The sample was classified into three different audiences: 1) High prefer-ence for commercial films; 2) Preference for both art and commercial films;and 3) High preference for art films, based on their responses to preferenceand behavioral questions measured on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree,5 = strongly agree). Preference was measured by: 1) “I generally prefer artfilms to commercial films,” and 2) “I generally prefer commercial films to artfilms” (reverse scored). Behavior was measured by: 3) “Over the past year Ihave seen more art films than commercial films (including videos and movieson TV),” and 4) “Over the past year I have seen more commercial films thanart films (including videos and movies on TV)” (reverse scored). Each pairof questions was added and averaged and the two dimensions were crosstabulated. Respondents who scored 2 or less (out of 5) on both dimensionswere classified as commercial filmgoers, and those who scored over 4 onboth dimensions were classified as mainly art film audiences. All others wereclassified as audiences for both art and commercial films. The multiple ques-tions relating to various attitudes and perceptions of moviegoers were factoranalyzed to identify constructs.
RESULTS
Sample Profile
Altogether, 441 people were interviewed and 3 were eliminated due to in-complete questionnaires. The sample of 438 attendees of the 4 theaterscovered a wide range of people with different levels of preferences towardsart films. Forty-five people were classified as mainly commercial film audi-ences, 198 as both, and 195 as mainly art film audiences. Generally, the artfilm audiences were older, better educated and more likely to ride a bicycle.Commercial film audiences were more likely to be male, full-time students,and own their own car (see Table 1). For the other demographic variables
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
220 S. L. H. Chuu et al.
TABLE 1 Demographic Profile of Respondents
Moviegoers who prefer. . ..
Commercial films Both Art filmsN = 45 N = 198 N = 195
% % % Chi-square
GenderFemale 34.1 34.2 48.4 9.01 (p < .01)Male 65.9 65.8 51.6
AgeUnder 25 27.3 19.0 12.0 22.68 a (p < .01)25–34 47.7 43.1 32.335–44 15.9 16.9 23.445–54 2.3 9.7 15.655 or over 6.8 11.3 16.7
Education 11.25a (p < .1)High school and before 15.9 11.3 6.3College/university 61.4 60.5 54.7Professional degree 11.4 9.2 12.5Master’s degree and above 11.4 19.0 26.6
Marital Status 1.52 (N.S.)Single 54.5 55.7 50.0Married or equivalent 34.1 34.4 37.4Divorced/widowed/separated 11.4 9.6 12.6
Having Children 1.68 (N.S.)No 75.0 82.5 78.5Yes 25.0 17.5 21.5
Employment 15.81a (p < .05)Full-time 46.7 49.5 46.2Part-time 13.3 10.6 13.3Self-employed 6.7 18.2 15.4Retired/unemployed/other 4.4 11.1 12.8Full-time student 28.9 10.6 12.3
TransportationOwned/leased car 61.4 57.4 46.4 14.19a (p < .01)Public transportation/taxi 38.6 34.4 37.5Bicycle 0.0 8.2 16.1
Income 4.2a (N.S.)$30,000 and under 33.3 30.9 38.1$30,000—$69,999 35.9 45.3 35.9Over $70,000 30.8 23.8 26.0
aSome categories were collapsed in order to run the chi-square test.
of marital status, having children, and income, there were no significantdifferences among the three groups of moviegoers.
The cultural lifestyle of the audiences was also investigated. The find-ings of this study agree with Smythe et al. (1953) in that art film audiencesdemonstrate a more cultured lifestyle than commercial film audiences (seeTable 2). They frequently attend concerts, nightclubs, visit art galleries, muse-ums, and go to the library. By contrast, commercial film audiences attended
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Exploring Art Film Audiences 221
TABLE 2 Behavioral Lifestyle Consumption
Moviegoers who prefer. . .
Commercial Artfilms Both films
N = 45 N = 198 N = 195% % % Chi-square
Q25.1. Attend a concert or performance in an auditorium or hallNever/Less than once a year 36.6 24.2 11.5 36.9 (p < .001)1–2 times a year 45.5 35.6 31.43–5 times a year 11.4 23.2 26.76–9 times a month 4.5 9.8 16.8More than 10 times a year 0.0 7.2 13.6
Column Total 100 % 100 % 100 %
Q25.2. Watch a show or performance at a club/bar/nightspot;Never/Less than once a year 41.9 29.5 33.3 13.75 (p < .1)1–2 times a year 32.6 22.3 20.33–5 times a year 14.0 21.8 17.76–9 times a month 11.6 10.4 14.6More than 10 times a year 0.0 16.1 14.1
Column Total 100 % 100 % 100 %
Q25.3. Attend a professional sports eventNever/Less than once a year 48.8 44.0 69.9 45.48a (p < .001)1–2 times a year 16.3 27.5 22.83–5 times a year 23.3 14.0 2.6More than 5 times a year 11.6 14.5 4.7
Column Total 100 % 100 % 100 %
Q25.4. Visit a museum or art galleryNever/Less than once a year 44.2 20.1 5.7 57.88 (p < .001)1–2 times a year 37.2 35.6 31.63–5 times a year 16.3 25.8 30.16–9 times a month 2.3 12.4 18.1More than 10 times a year 0.0 6.2 14.5
Column Total 100 % 100 % 100 %
Q25.5. Go to a libraryLess than 2 times a year 27.3 25.3 11.4 23.36 a (p < .001)3–5 times a year 20.5 17.9 10.9
6–9 times a month 13.6 13.2 16.6More than 10 times a year 38.6 43.7 61.1
aSome categories were collapsed in order to run the chi-square test.
more professional sporting events. Perhaps this is not surprising given thatmost of the commercial film loyalists were male.
Attitude Constructs
Seventeen questions (measured on a seven-point scale; 1 = strongly disagreeto 7 = strongly agree) about movie attitudes and behavior were reduced byprincipal components analysis. Five factors explaining 59% of the variance
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
222 S. L. H. Chuu et al.
were generated: 1) commitment to movie attendance; 2) passive attitudesto movies; 3) deep positive attitudes; 4) buying movie merchandise; and 5)theater location. Cronbach alphas were computed for each factor and rangedfrom a low of .41 for theater location to a high of .77 for commitment tomovie attendance (see Table 3). These results were used for creating thevariables for hypothesis testing, both through factor scores and summatedconstructs.
Test of Hypotheses
Movie Attendance: Hypothesis one was supported as the results show thatart film audiences generally attend movies more often (Table 4). Only 3.6%of the art film audience went fewer than five times a year, whereas 22.7% ofcommercial audiences went fewer than five time a year and about 25.3% ofart film goers went more than five times a month, while 6.8% of commercialaudiences went more than five times a month (X2 = 25.72, p < .001).Analyzing this data as a continuous variable, the average movie going activityis significantly different among all groups, 2.61 vs. 3.07 vs. 3.44 (F = 10.15,p <.001).
Hypothesis two was also supported, as art film audiences reported theyare more likely to attend movies alone than commercial film audiences. Forthe question “For movies that I really want to see, I don’t mind going alone,”the means for the three groups are 5.04 vs. 5.76 vs. 6.35 (F = 16.87, p <
.001). All groups are significantly different than each other, with art filmgoers strongly agreeing that they will go alone to a movie they really wantto see.
Importance of Movies to One’s Life: Hypothesis three, that art film au-diences consider movie-going more important in their life than commercialfilm audiences, was tested in two ways. First, factor scores from the firstfactor of commitment to movie attendance and then a computed variableadding and averaging the five questions within the factor (e.g., “attendingmovies regularly is an important part of my life”; “attending movies has beenan important long-term hobby to me,” etc.). Average factor scores for thethree groups are −.47 vs. −.07 vs. .17 (F = 8.64 p <.001), with all groupssignificantly different than each other. Using the averaged construct 7-pointscale we have means of 4.37 vs. 4.98 vs. 5.56, (F = 22.65, p < .001) showingthat art film audiences feel movies are a more deeply important part of theirlives than the other two groups (which are also significantly different fromeach other).
Attitude toward movies: Hypothesis four stated art film goers have amore positive attitude towards movies in general, than commercial film au-diences. To test this, the two factors generated from the data were com-pared among the groups: passive attitudes (Cronbach alpha = .75) and deep
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
TA
BLE
3Pro
filin
gD
imen
sions
ofM
ovi
eA
ttitu
des
and
Beh
avio
rs
Fact
or
Cro
nbac
h’s
alpha
Var
iable
sco
mposi
ng
the
fact
or
(fac
tor
load
ings
)V
aria
nce
expla
ined
Fact
or
1:Com
mitm
entto
Movi
eA
tten
dan
ce.7
7Q
19.Fo
rm
ovi
esth
atI
real
lyw
antto
see,
Idon’t
min
dgo
ing
alone.
(.56
)Q
20.Fo
rm
ovi
esth
atI
real
lyw
antto
see,
Iw
illat
tend
ath
eate
rw
ithpoor
qual
ityfa
cilit
ies
(.47
)25
.54%
Q21
.A
tten
din
gm
ovi
esre
gula
rly
isan
importan
tpar
tofm
ylif
e.(.75
)Q
22.M
yfr
equen
cyofat
tendin
gm
ovi
eshas
bee
nve
ryco
nsi
sten
tove
rth
ela
stth
ree
year
s.(.77
)Q
23.A
tten
din
gm
ovi
eshas
bee
nan
importan
tlo
ng-
term
hobby
tom
e.(.80
)
Fact
or
2:Pas
sive
Attitu
de
.75
Q7.
To
me,
movi
esar
eju
sthar
mle
sspas
time.
(.66
)Q
11.Iusu
ally
goto
am
ovi
eonly
for
ago
od
laugh
.(.75
)11
.39%
Q13
.Fo
rm
e,at
tendin
gm
ovi
esis
just
one
way
tohan
goutw
ithfr
iends.
(.73
)Q
14.M
ovi
esar
eju
sta
form
ofen
tertai
nm
ent.
(.76
)
Fact
or
3:D
eep
Posi
tive
Attitu
de
.69
Q9.
The
movi
esIvi
ewin
crea
sem
yap
pre
ciat
ion
ofbea
uty
.(.66
)8.
79%
Q12
.M
ovi
espro
vide
aso
urc
eofin
form
atio
nth
atis
importan
tto
my
life
exper
ience
.(.67
)Q
16.M
ost
ofth
em
ovi
esIw
atch
are
atrue
reflec
tion
ofw
hat
life
isre
ally
like
ina
give
ntim
e.(.70
)7.
26%
Q17
.M
ovi
esca
nusu
ally
enrich
our
cultu
ralpote
ntia
l.(.70
)
Fact
or
4:M
ovi
e-A
ffilia
ted
Mer
chan
dis
e.53
Q8.
Ilik
eto
buy
movi
e-af
filia
ted
mer
chan
dis
eofth
em
ovi
esIlik
e.(.78
)Q
18.B
uyi
ng
any
movi
e-af
filia
ted
mer
chan
dis
eis
aw
aste
ofm
oney
.(−
.80)
Fact
or
5:Tole
rance
ofThea
ter
Loca
tion
.41
Q10
.Fo
ra
movi
eth
atIre
ally
wan
tto
see,
Idon’t
min
dtrav
elin
gove
ran
hour
toat
tend
the
movi
eth
eate
r.(.73
)5.
91%
Q15
.Idid
notat
tend
som
em
ovi
esth
atIw
ante
dto
see
bec
ause
ofth
elo
catio
nofth
eth
eate
r.(−
.80)
223
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
224 S. L. H. Chuu et al.
TABLE 4 Frequency of Movie Attendance
Moviegoers who prefer . . .
Commercial films Both Art filmsN = 45 N = 198 N = 195
% % %
(1) Less than 5 times a year 22.7% 11.2% 3.6% χ 2 = 25.72(2) 6–10 times a year 22.7% 22.8% 21.1% (p < .001)(3) 1–2 times a month 31.8% 31.0% 27.8%(4) 3–4 times a month 15.9% 17.8% 22.2%(5) 5 times or more a month 6.8% 17.3% 25.3%
Average scores on 5-point 2.61a (1.2) 3.07b (1.2) 3.44c (1.2) F = 10.15scale (sd) (p < .001)
abc: numbers with different superscripts indicate significant differences p <.05.
positive attitudes (Cronbach Alpha = .69). Again we used 1) the factor scoresand 2) new constructs from added and averaged items within the each fac-tor. The Manova results in Table 5 show that art film audiences have thehighest level of agreement to deep positive statements among the threemoviegoer groups and they also have the lowest level of agreement to pas-sive statements—followed by those moviegoers who prefer both types offilms, and then commercial moviegoers (F = 20.55, p < .001).
In summary, art film audiences tend to believe that movies possessan important value which can enrich both their minds and spirits. For thisaudience, movies are a form of art. To the contrary, commercial film audi-ences are more likely to perceive movies as a form of entertainment, whichprovides a good past-time to enjoy with one’s friends.
Tolerance toward Movie Theater Location and Conditions: The resultsfailed to support Hypothesis Five, which stated that art film audiences have ahigher level of tolerance for the location of movie theaters than commercialfilm audiences (3.86 vs. 3.96 vs. 3.76, N.S.). Most moviegoers of all types con-sider “the ease of getting to the theater” somewhat important in determiningtheir movie attendance. Respondents in all three groups were unlikely to go
TABLE 5 Attitudes towards Movies in General
Commercialfilms Both Art films Manova Wilks
Moviegoers who prefer . . . Mean Mean Mean Lambda
Passive Attitude Factor Score .63a .18b −.33c 20.55 (p < .001)Deep Positive Attitude Factor Score −.23a −.22a .28b
Passive Attitude Construct∗ 3.98a 3.26b 2.47c 22.75 (p < .001)Deep Positive attitude Construct∗ 4.21a 4.44a 5.10b
∗1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree.abc: numbers with different superscripts are significantly different from each other p < .05.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Exploring Art Film Audiences 225
TABLE 6 Tolerance towards Movie Theater Facilities
Commercial films Both Art films Manova WilksMoviegoers who prefer . . . Mean Mean Mean Lambda
Internal Facilities Factor Score .32a .15a −.22b 6.41 (p < .001)External Facilities Factor Score .28a .07a −.13b
Internal Facilities Construct∗ 2.69a 2.56a 2.32b 6.35 (p < .001)External Facilities Construct∗ 2.93a 2.71a 2.46b
∗1 = Not at all Important, 4 = Very Important.abc: numbers with different superscripts are significantly different from each other p < .05.
out of their way and travel long distances to see a movie, even if they reallywanted to see it.
Hypothesis Six was tested by asking respondents how important variousaspects of the movie theaters were: snack bar, seating, quality of sound,washrooms, parking, and ease of getting to the theater. Factor analyses ofthese items resulted in two factors (61% of the variance): 1) internal attributes(Cronbach alpha = .72) and 2) external attributes (Cronbach alpha = .54).These items were analyzed two ways: 1) adding and averaging the items; and2) using factor scores (Table 6). Manova of the two factors showed significantdifferences between art film audiences and the other two groups. Art filmaudiences were more tolerant of the facilities than commercial film audiencesand those who like both venues. There were no differences between thecommercial and both groups. The results also show that art film audiencesare more likely to attend theaters with poor quality facilities when they reallywant to see a movie. Commercial film audiences feel a theater’s facilities areimportant and, thus, are more likely to look for theaters with things such ascomfortable seats, high-quality sound, good washrooms, and ease of parking(p < .001).
Movie-Affiliated Merchandise: Hypothesis seven, that art film audienceshave a higher interest in purchasing movie-affiliated merchandise than com-mercial film audiences, was not supported. The two questions from factorfour were used in the analyses, once with the factor scores and second asan added construct (Cronbach alpha = .53). We found that commercial au-diences and those who enjoyed both art and commercial films had similarscores and were significantly more interested in this type of merchandisethan the art film audiences (.25 vs. .09 vs −.15, F = 4.49 p < .01: 2.78 vs.2.58 vs. 2.22, F = 6.47 p < .01). Overall, none of the groups were really veryinterested in movie merchandise as scores were well below the mid-point of4 on the 7- point scale.
DISCUSSION
Art film audiences are found to be committed to movie attendance, hold apositive attitude towards movies in general, and are more tolerant of theater
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
226 S. L. H. Chuu et al.
conditions. They actively seek out movie information and release scheduleson their own. To the art film audience, movies are more than entertainment;they are part of a cultural lifestyle.
It is the long-term orientation of the art film consumer that is the qualitywhich most distinguishes the art film market from the commercial market.Most art film audiences are extremely loyal to movies—they attend moviesvery frequently and even consider movie-going as an important long-termactivity in their life. This long-term value of the art film market cannot beproperly evaluated and determined by the Hollywood measurement of box-office figures, which is fundamentally short-term profit-oriented. From a mar-keter’s perspective, this long-term orientation reduces marketing expensesbecause the audiences will respond quickly to the promotion of a productwith which they have a relationship. Furthermore, the consistency of thismarket may correspond with the ability to standardize marketing strategiesthat do not have to be redesigned to suit short-term fluctuation of the marketdemand. This would also lead to reduced expenses in the long run for moviepromoters.
Art film audiences are generally tolerant of less than ideal movie theaterfacilities and their decision about movie attendance is simply based on thefilms shown. In addition, art film distribution companies do not necessarilyneed to spend a tremendous amount of money on marketing, which is thenorm for the commercial film sector. Instead, they can rely more on word-of-mouth among loyal art film audiences to encourage others to see films. Mostart movie houses send schedules of upcoming releases to their clientele byemail, thus avoiding costly advertising.
Based on our conclusions, we recommend several actions. First, sinceart film audiences are more committed to movie attendance and treat moviesmore as a long-term hobby than commercial film audiences are and do, re-spectively, we recommend targeting consumers at a young age. For example,if college students can get into the habit of appreciating art films, such asThe Inconvenient Truth, the long-term nature of the hobby may become sec-ond nature to their weekly routine. To establish this long-term relationshipwith the consumer, we recommend loyalty programs such as membershipclubs at an art-house theater and presentations accompanying the films. Con-sumers may feel satisfied by being an official member of the sophisticatedand unique art film community.
Second, since art film audiences are more likely to go to classical musicconcerts, plays, theater, operas, and the library than commercial film audi-ences, we recommend targeting at consumers who participate in these activ-ities. At the same time, art-house theaters or movie distribution companiesshould establish joint promotions with production companies of these othervenues. This strategy could effectively expand the art film market. In addition,both art films and cultural events share a similar upscale image, and joint-promotion would strengthen and promote the sophisticated image of both.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Exploring Art Film Audiences 227
Since art film audiences seek out information about movies on theirown, we recommend allocating informing the audiences through a customerdatabase. This can be combined with membership clubs mentioned earlier.Art film theaters can send information about up-coming movies to members.The information sent out can be about the movie as well as announce-ments of up-coming events such as lectures or a brief introduction aboutthe movie prior to the showing of the movie, analogous to opera houseshiring a speaker to talk about the composer and the opera right before theperformance starts. The idea is to keep potential audiences well-informed sothat they will come to see the movies.
Limitations
The movies shown during the data collection period inevitably had an in-fluence on the sampling frame, but we tried to minimize this with data col-lections in different theaters with different movie screenings. Second, theremay be social desirability bias in respondents’ answering the question abouttheir preference towards art or commercial films. Art films generally hold anintellectual image, and many respondents may want to associate with thisimage in creating a desirable and intelligent impression of them. On theother hand, some audiences may want to stay away from the “artsy” imageand tone down their positive attitudes towards art films when answering thequestions in the survey (Vaughan, 2006).
REFERENCES
Adler, K. P. (1959). Art films and eggheads. Studies in Public Communication, No.2 (summer), 7–15.
Austin, B. A. (1984). Portrait of an art film audience. Journal of Communication,34(1), 74–87.
Chamberlin, P. (1960). The art film and its audiences: I. Allies, not enemies: Com-mercial and nontheatrical experience on the west coast. Film Quarterly, 14(2),36–39.
Durie, J., Pham, A., & Watson, N. (2000). Marketing and selling your film aroundthe world. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press.
Elberse,A., & Eliashberg, J. (2003). Demand and supply dynamics for sequentiallyreleased products in international markets: The case of motion pictures. Mar-keting Science, 22(4), 329–354.
Eliashberg, J., & Sawhney, M. S. (1994). Modeling goes to Hollywood: Predicting indi-vidual differences in movie enjoyment. Management Science, 40(9), 1151–1173.
Eliashberg, J., Swami, S., Weinberg, C. B., & Wierenga, B. (2001). Implementing andevaluating SilverScreener: A marketing management support system for movieexhibitors. Interfaces, 31(3), S108–S127.
Ensign, L. N., & Knapton, R. E. (1985). The complete dictionary of television and film.New York: Stein and Day, Incorporated.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
228 S. L. H. Chuu et al.
Faber, R. J., O’Guinn, T. C., & Hardy, A. P. (1988). Art films in the suburbs: Acomparison of popular and art film audiences. In B. A. Austin (Ed.), CurrentResearch in Film: Audiences, Economics, and Law, Vol. 4. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,45–53.
Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2006). An inconvenient truth [Motion Picture]. USA:Laurence Bender Productions, Participant Productions.
Irving, J. (1995). Selling it: The marketing of Canadian feature films. Toronto: TheAcademy of Canadian Cinema and Television.
Krider, R. E., & Weinberg, C. B. (1998). Competitive dynamics and the introduction ofnew products: The motion picture timing game. Journal of Marketing Research,35(1), 1–15.
Kurosawa, A. (Writer/Director), Akutagawa, R., & Hashimoto, S. (Writer). Rashomon[Motion Picture]. Japan: Daiei Motion Picture Company, Daiei Studios.
Lindsay-Hogg, M. (Director), O’Leary, R., & Raymo, C. (Writers). Frankie Starlight(Motion Picture). Ireland: Bord Scannan na nEireann.
Muska, S. (Writer/Director), & Olafsdottir, G. (Writer/Director). (1998). The BrandonTeena story [Motion Picture]. USA: Bless Bless Productions.
Neelamegham, R., & Jain, D. (1999). Consumer choice process for experience goods:An econometric model and analysis. Journal of Marketing, 36(3), 373–386.
Onex Corp. cinema chains to be acquired in push into art-film market. (November12, 2002). Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), C–10.
Sawhney, M. S., & Eliashberg, J. (1996). A parsimonious model for forecasting grossbox-office revenues of motion pictures. Marketing Science, 15(2), 113–131.
Smythe, D. W., Lusk, P. B., & Lewis, C. A. (1953). Portrait of an art-theater audience.Quarterly of Film, Radio and Television, 8(1), 28–50.
Swami, S., Eliashberg, J., & Weinberg, C. B. (1999). SilverScreener: A modelingapproach to movie screens management. Marketing Science, 18(3), 352–372.
Vahemetsa, A. (1970). A typology of the recipients of artistic films. Society andLeisure, No. 2: 87–101.
Vaughan, R. M. (2006, July 6). Forget art films, I’d rather watch stuff blow up. Globeand Mail [Toronto], R1.
Watson, J. C. (2006). The film preference scale: The effect of preference and culturalcapital on film going behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 33(1), 325–328.
Weinberg, C. B. (2003). Profits out of the picture: Research issues and revenuesources beyond the North American box office. Working paper. Vancouver,Canada: University of British Columbia. Retrieved February 11, 2008, fromhttp://www.sauder.ubc.ca/FacultyResearch2/Research/Documents/Weinberg/2489profitsoutofthepicture.pdf
Wilinsky, B. (1996). A thinly disguised art veneer covering a filthy sex picture:Discourses on art houses in the 1950s. Film History, 8(2), 143–158.
Wong, K.-W. (Writer/Director). In the mood for love [Motion Picture]. Hong Kong:Block 2 Pictures.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
11:
58 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
