Upload
buidiep
View
215
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 / 22
Paper: Vertical integration in the supply chain of international movie industry [004-0370] Name of the conference: Seventeenth Annual Conference of POMS, Boston, MA, April 28 – May
1, 2006 Authors: Prof. Deive G Rodrigues – Master's degree student of Business Administration at EAESP/FGV-SP –
[email protected] Prof. Aldo F. Bastos – Master's degree student of Business Administration at EAESP/FGV-SP –
[email protected] Prof. João Mario Csillag – Professor of Business Administration at EAESP/FGV-SP –
Vertical integration in the supply chain of
international movie industry Abstract This paper analyses the vertical integration of the film industry, the most profitable and crescent creative industry in the world in the last decades. The performance (gross/budget) of film distributors was correlated with their level of independence using global data since the 90’s and the main control of the firms. Statistical testes were made to verify if there are evidences of a better performance of the distributors more vertically integrated. The study of creative industries is still a big gap in Operations Area and in the world are still few studies analyzing vertical integration in this kind of business. And if a quantitative analysis were considered, this number is still minor. This study represents a first attempt to compare vertical integration and performance of the film industry. The quantitative and statistical analyses were also a distinctive point in this paper. Track – Supply Chain Management Keywords Vertical Integration Creative Industries Movie Industry Performance Measurement
2 / 22
1. Introduction
The project of productive operations network, according to Slack, Chambers and Johnston
(2002), at its most strategical level, projects the shape and network configuration in which the
organization is part of. Mostly, this decision will result in how this organization will compete in the
market in terms of performance objectives. To the authors, the project must consider the perspective of
the entire network to help the company understand the most effective way to compete, identify
meaningful relations between stages and focus a long term perspective.
The strategical decision to make or buy comes associated with this project, that is, what are the
potential competitive advantages of expanding the property of the organization in chain or supply
network. On the other hand, the decision of buying either all or a part of essential services may also be
beneficial.
The aim of this article is to analyze the vertical integration as a factor to increase the
competitive advantage inside a creative industry – the world movie industry.
This sector was chosen because the selling of culture, entertainment, and experiences has
increased quickly in the last century and it tends to continue rising in the future. In 1996, “cultural
products”, such as movies, music, TV, magazines, software, and books were the most exported
products in the USA, overcoming for the first time the other traditional areas, such as automotive,
weapons, aerospatial, and agriculture.
This new industry grew three times faster than the other economic areas as a whole from 1977-
1996, exporting a total of US$ 60.180 millions in 1996. The world selling of cultural products grew
from US$ 95.340 millions to US$ 387.927 millions from 1980 to 1998 – an average growth of 12.7%
per year (Nielsen, 2004).
Moreover, the sector has a big diversity of cases of both integration and independent
distributors which makes it a rich study source in the Operations area.
This work is based on the conceptual model of the figure 1, which shows the proposed
development of constructs of this work. In this picture it is indicated the constructs that have theoretical
subsidies and the propositions made in this work that constitute the part (i) of literature revision
(decisions to make or buy, vertical integration). Besides the conceptual model this work contains (ii)
explanations about the study; (iii) methodology; (iv) results; and (v) conclusions.
3 / 22
Increase in the Increase in the performance by performance by
vertical vertical integrationintegration
Film industry (4)
Vantages (3)
Creative industries
(4)
Vertical integration (3)
Gap in the theoryExisting theory
To make or to buy
decision (2)
Question(1): the number indicates the chapter that studies the constructLegend:
Existing relation Proposal relation
Disadvantages (3)
Performance of film industry x
vantages of vertical integration
Figure 1 – Constructs conceptual model. Font: Built by authors.
2. Economy of transactional costs: the decision to make or to buy
The vertical integration in a supply chain, according to Slack and Lewis (2001), may be defined
as the degree and extension of property of a network that an organization has concerning the network it
is part of. At an strategical meaning, it evolves the analysis, through organization, of the convenience
of acquiring suppliers and/or clients. Concerning products or individual services, it means the operation
is deciding whether to produce a specific individual component or to buy it from a suppliers, as an
alternative.
Chandler (1977) points out that vertical integration has been the main power for the development
of high productivity and managerial sophistication of north-American industry.
The issue of vertical integration has been widely approached and discussed. However, for a
deeper analysis, it is necessary to bring up a few concepts of Transactional Costs Economy (TCE).
Coase (1937) introduced his theoretical approach on New Institutional Economy (NIE),
considered one of the most important contributions for posterior studies. The main concepts of TCE
have evolved from it, recognizing the existence of costs in the business economical environment.
Furubotn & Richter (1991) propose that transactional costs are necessary to the functioning of
economical and social mechanisms. They are not originated directly from the production, but appear
when agents relate among each other and problems with co-ordination of actions arise.
According to Zylberterstajn (1995) the basic assumption of TCE is that there are costs in the
usage of a price system as well as in the conduction of intra-firm contracts. Therefore, for the
functioning of economic system, not only are the contracts carried out via market important, but also
those centrally co-ordenated by firms.
4 / 22
For Barney (1999), the approach of Transactional Costs Economy is capable to specify the
conditions under which firms should manage an economic transaction inside their organizational limits,
as well as the conditions under which this transaction should be made by a third part.
Vertical integration analyzed concerning the focus of the decision of to buy or to make, according
to Fine (1999), goes through the important decision of whether capabilities should be developed and
kept in the company’s scope or they could be safely handled by a third part, that is, which capabilities
are to be made and which are to be bought, analyzing which are essential or outlying.
In this aspect, Padillo and Diaby (1999) have established a methodology of multiple-criteria
decision to analyze several strategical, operational, and financial implications of the decision of to buy
or to make. In their research, they have shown that it is possible to use a multidimensional approach in
the solution of the problem “buy or make”, regarding aims like maximizing the performance of
competitive strategy, maximizing managerial performance, minimizing risks, and maximizing financial
performance.
Taking into consideration that in this study of case the “making” means the movie producer
company must be responsible for the distribution of its products, whereas the “buying” means this
distribution will be made by companies that are not part of its conglomerate, an analogy can be made
with Higgins’s (1955) list of reasons for a company to make or buy:
“Reasons to Make:
• Study of cases show making is cheaper than buying;
• Making is related to the know-how, own equipment and tradition;
• Idle capability is available to absorb new orders;
• Object of study is uncommon or complex; direct supervision required;
• Making represents your control over changes, inventories, and deliveries;
• Difficulty in transporting the material;
• The project of the material or its processing is confidential;
• It is not advisable to rely on one source of supplies only.
Reasons to Buy:
• Study of cases show that buying is cheaper than making;
5 / 22
• Space, equipment, time, and ability are not available for the required operations;
• Due to the small amount or needs of funds, the investment to “make” is not attractive;
• Material demand is seasonal, cyclical or it’s associated with risks;
• Needs for special techniques and equipments lead logically to buying. Your supplier will help
you produce a better quality product.
• If you believe it is best for the executives to focus on their specialties;
• If you want to control your own operation;
• When the relationship customer-supplier is favored with buying the goods.”
There are other important factors when it comes to deciding whether to make or to buy, besides
the issue of costs. Dale and Cunningham (1983) point out a few cases in which projected economies
were considered by some executives insufficient to make a risky decision of buying. Some
considerations such as the guarantee of a continued supply, potential conflicts in industrial relations,
systems unable to run the policy of buying, minimum amount of purchase from supplier, structure of
supplier market and problems of a single supply in a volatile market have influenciated the decision.
According to Fine and Whitney (1995) the option of the buying policy requires that the
administration of the third part process represents a central competence of the organization. They also
point out that a third part process creates two kinds of dependences, one with a smaller risk when
dependency occurs by capability, and another one, with bigger risk, when dependency occurs by
knowledge.
Finally, Anderson Jr. and Parker (2002) point out that companies that adopt third-part policies
with the aim to obtain cost economies at a short term may increase them in at a long term. Another
topic discussed by authors is that some companies keep a part of material production at home to know
the cost structures of their suppliers and increase their bargain power over them, or even use external
suppliers to increase discipline in their internal units.
3. Vertical Integration: strategy and performance
The analysis of productive chains of movies and entertainment industry in general is not easily
found in books or in published academic articles. However, the concepts associated to administration of
supply chain, vertical integration and strategical decisions of whether to make or to buy can be applied
to this kind of industry.
6 / 22
Chopra & Meindl (2003) affirm that a supply chain include all links either direct or indirectly
involved in attending to a customer’s order, including functions inside and outside the company that
enable the value chain to elaborate products and provide services to their customers.
Lambert et al. (1998) say that a key factor to analyze a supply chain is to understand explicitly its
configuration. Herewith, the organization network must be planned and established to describe which
are the performing organizations, their links, members or stages. Authors still characterize the links of a
supply chain as primary and support.
Primary links are all the organizations that perform operational activities or administration in the
business process necessary to produce something to a specific client or market. As for support links,
they are all the organizations that only offer resources, knowledge, utilities, or assets to primary links.
There are several manners for companies to manage their operations in a supply chain, depending
on the commercial complexity associated to creation and delivery of goods and services, the sources of
raw material and the demanding level of final consumers (Lamming et al ,2000). These issues may be
important director of the extension level of property of a company in a chain or supply network.
According to Simchi-Levi, Kaminsky and Simchi-Levi (2003), if we properly use the
information along the supply network, we can reduce the cost of the system. However, this is easier to
be done in a centralized system, or co-ordenated by a stage of the supply network, than in a
decentralized system.
In this context, we can consider the issue of vertical integration as a strategical decision, since it
may strongly affect and direct the performance of this company in the market where it works. To Hayes
and Wheelwright (1984), the strategy of vertical integration of a company is defined in terms of
direction of expansion, the necessary amplitude of the process and the resulting balance between
vertically integrated stages.
Harrigan (1984) has developed a model to evaluate the components and implications that
compose the strategy of vertical integration. This model points out that any strategy of vertical
integration must consider the amplitude of responsibility of the integrated activities, the number of
stages of the integrated activities, the level of internal transferences of each vertical connection, and
finally, the type of property used to control the vertical relationship.
Buzzell (1983) has listed some important factors that must also be considered in the evaluation of
strategies of vertical integration: pay attention to necessary high investments, consider alternatives to
properties, avoid partial integration, be careful with the analysis of the scale of requirements, and
finally, be skeptical to the appeals that vertical integration reduces the costs of raw materials.
7 / 22
Mpoyi (2003) has also evaluated the strategical aspects of vertical integration through a research,
in which 27% of the analyzed companies have shown recent movements in the opposite direction, that
is, the vertical non integration. The article still points out vertical non integration as the most recent
corporate strategy to improve operational performance of the analyzed companies.
Maybe the most important issue to be evaluated in the analysis of vertical integration is if it really
brings any profits to companies’ performances.
D’aveni and Ravenscraft (1994) found evidences that vertical integration results in economies
even when the effects of the industry and scale and scope economy are controlled:
• Business lines vertically integrated obtained economies in general and administrative
expenses, besides expenses with sales, publicity, research and development, but on the other
hand, they showed bigger production costs and profitability slightly superior than the other
non integrated business lines, for the same industrial sector.
• High production costs were related to vertical integration (initial part), suggesting a certain
isolation to market pressure and lack of incentive to costs reduction.
• Vertical integration was related to costs of smaller transactions.
This way, the authors found effect evidences of the efficiency of vertical integration, as well as
of associated burocratic costs.
Vertical integration may increase production costs and administrative expenses for several
reasons. According to Chandler (1962) and Rumelt (1974) production costs are also increased by the
excessive purchase of actives that increase fixed costs, leading to a potential increase of the capability
and reduction of profitability.
Harrigan (1984) summarized in Table 1 some of the main advantages and disadvantages of
vertical integration.
Table 1 – advantages and disadvantages of vertical integration Advantages Disadvantages
1. Internal benefits 2. Internal costs Integration reduces costs through the elimination of tasks, reduces duplicated activities and cuts costs (dependent of technology)
Need of co-ordenation to administer costs due to vertical integration
Improvement of co-ordenation of activities and reduces inventory and other expenses
Need of excessive capability to balance minimum uneven efficiency of maps (dependent of technology)
8 / 22
Advantages Disadvantages Avoid tasks which require time, such as emission of price lists, communication details and contracts.
Companies with little organization of integrated activities don’t enjoy the synergies that compensate high costs.
3. Competitive benefits 4. Competitive risks Avoid delay in entry of data, services and in markets.
Out-of-date processes may be perpetuated
Improve technological and market intelligence. Create mobility (or exit) obstacles Create opportunities to create product differentiation (increases joined value)
Connect the company to adjacent businesses)
Bigger control of company’s economic environment
Lose access to suppliers and distributors’ information
Create credibility to new products Synergies created through vertical integration may be overestimated or exaggerated
Synergies can be created to co-ordenate vertical activities
Managers’ integration was made before verifying the best way to do it
Source: Harrigan (1984)
Before these several aspects, according to Slack and Lewis (2001), most justifications to
vertical integration may be unfolded into four categories:
• Assure reliable supply of its raw materials and services;
• Enable cost reduction;
• Help improve the quality of products and services;
• Help knowing other activities in supply network.
In terms of performance aims defined by Slack, Chambers and Johnston (2002), vertical
integration benefits are complex, being able to affect, positively, the quality of products, speed of
product delivery, reliability of supply, flexibility of development of products and services, and, mainly,
the cost.
Montenegro (1995) points out that transactions which have efficient execution and are strongly
dependent on investments in specific human funds, will tend to be those co-ordinated by companies.
Similarly, Grant (1991) points out that the co-ordination of activities by companies can contribute to
the development of resources and abilities of organization, which are important elements to sustain a
competitive advantage.
Finally, according to Sorenson (2003), vertically integrated organizations, in stable
environment, are less benefit from the learning of “making” than companies that buy their components
from external suppliers. On the other hand, vertical integration protects the firm from external
9 / 22
environment, establishing the conditions in which the firm must be adapted to. According to the author,
integrated companies learn slowly, but the knowledge they acquire maintains their value for a long
period.
The issue of vertical integration has been widely approached in several studies. Particularly
when it’s evaluated concerning the impact it may cause in companies’ performances. Harrigan (1984),
just like several other authors, have compiled some of the main advantages and disadvantages related to
the strategy of vertical integration, both concerning internal benefit aspects (especially costs) and
strategical and competitive aspects. Montenegro (1995) studied the aspects of human capital and
knowledge, related to vertical integration strategy.
However, it was not found studies that related the issue of vertical integration with competitive
advantages, especially those represented by Slack and Lewis’s (2001) aims of performance: quality,
speed, reliability, flexibility, and cost or even related to the performance of vertical integration in
chains of creative industries.
4. The movie industry
For historical reasons, the United States are the dominant force in the entertainment industry, and,
particularly among these, the movie industry. Nowadays, American movies are shown in over 150
countries. This complex productive chain is globally represented by Motion Picture Association.
The sector is marked by the existence of great conglomerates responsible for several links of this
chain. The greatest groups of the world are Columbia, Disney, Fox, MGM, Sony, Universal and
Warner. Inside these multinationals there are several companies, including the ones responsible for the
making of costumes, equipment rental, distribution, among others, but to give a better explanation in
this paper, they will be described only by the names above mentioned (Columbia, 2005; Disney, 2005;
Fox, 2005; MGM, 2005; Sony, 2005; Universal; 2005; Warner; 2005)
Movies are essentially projects that are similar to a new line of products or a new restaurant.
However, they have a unique quality: they are expensive commodities. And, unlike other commodities,
their main features cannot be describes or measured. Besides, each moment studios need to select
projects from a series of proposals, and the motto it’s usually the presence of a great movie star or
special effects not yet used. In this context, we can name Jurassic Park, Volcano, Twister, Titanic,
among others. (Ravid, 1999)
The movie making process is somewhat peculiar and depends a lot on the creativity and
sensibility of those who are involved in the development of the project. It varies from a simple kind of
10 / 22
movie, in which only one actor is responsible for the whole action (e.g. Cast Away) to movies in which
actors are part of, because they were attracted by the great quality of the movie or its cast (e.g. Ocean’s
Eleven)
There are few studies that document the critical factors of success for the movie industry, but
those that do it usually relate the creation of “stars” and other demonstrations of acknowledgment (such
as magazine covers) to the result of a successful movie and that is why the annual awarding ceremonies
by the Academy (the Academy Awards) are so important and disputed. (Ravid, 1999)
The frontiers of this industry are not that clear. Nowadays, the majority of big movie studios
(especially American ones) are part of great conglomerates linked to several other industries. In this
context, joint ventures, alliances, and acquisitions had a meaningful increase in the last decade. In the
same way, technology has become a critical factor concerning administration of supply chain, since the
fragmentation of distribution channels associated with the Internet have created a deep impact over
these industries.
Newcomers from other areas have also started to invade the entertainment industries. For
example, Microsoft, Disney, Time/Warner, GE/NBC, TCI and News Corp. are involved in several joint
ventures, which were named by specialists American Keiretsu (Tourism Industry Association of
Canada).
This paper has the aim to review the condition of art in literature under the theme of supply chain
and movie industry and to analyze the supply chain of the main producers, trying to verify if their
integration brings a better performance.
5. Methodology
This paper wishes to validate:
Hypothesis 1: movie distributors more vertically integrated (are part of great conglomerates)
have better performances (gross/budget) than independent distributors
This study has been organized in two parts: qualitative and quantitative.
Due to the extension of supply chain of movies and their numerous and complex links, this study
focus on the analysis of producers and distributors. The qualitative analysis was constituted in the
11 / 22
analysis of links and chain relations, with the aim to verify if there is any interference in this relations
with the performance of movie distributors.
The quantitative analysis was made by using data banks of movies released from 1999 until 2005
(Numbers, 2005; Box office guru, 2005). these banks had 2771 movies with statistics of release date,
showing information, budget, and profits in the USA and in the world, distributors, and others.
In this analysis, it was used a sample of 93 distributors and 900 movies, which are all the main
distributors and world releases, divided according to their vertical integration (participation on great
conglomerates or not) and to the profit obtained in the American and world market. The budget
considered in this study was the same for both profits. With this data, the performance was analyzed
(gross/budget) in the USA and in the world in both groups (more and less vertically integrated)
Table 2 shows the distributors taken into consideration on this study:
Table 2 – Distributors analysed in this study
NO VERTICAL INTEGRATION (are not part of a conglomerate)
WITH VERTICAL INTEGRATION
(part of a conglomerate) 8X Focus New Line Shooting Gallery 21st Century (FOX) Alliance Galaxy New Market Stratosphere Buena Vista (DISNEY) Artisan Giant Screen New Visions Studio Three Columbia (COLUMBIA) Artistic License Goldwyn New World Taurus Fox (FOX) Avenue Good Machine Norstar Televisa Cine Fox Searchlight (FOX) Cannon Gramercy October ThinkFilm MGM (MGM) CFP Hemdale Off White Tips MGM/UA (MGM) Cho Taussig IDP Orion Trimark Miramax (DISNEY) Cinecom IFC Films Orion Classics Triumph Paramount (PARAMOUNT) Cloud Tem Imax Polygram USA Films Paramount Classics (PARAMOUNT) Concorde Ind. Artists Providence UTV Sony (SONY) Corsair InterStar R.S. Ent. Vestron Sony Classics (SONY) Destination Lions Gate Rajshri WIP TriStar (COLUMBIA) Dimension Live RBC Radio Yash Raj Films UA (UNIVERSAL) DreamWorks MacGillivray Roadside /
Goldwyn Zeitgeist Universal (UNIVERSAL)
Emshell Magnolia Savoy Universal Focus (UNIVERSAL) Eros Media Partners Scotti Warner Bros. (WARNER) Film Foundry Millimeter SET Índia Warner Independent (WARNER) Fine Line Mulberry Square Seven Arts First National New Century SGE Source: organized by the authors
Unconsidering the movies with lack of information, the average and standard-deviation of these
samples were calculated.
With these information a hypothesis test was done with the following characteristics:
12 / 22
Ho: µ1 = µ2, that is, the performance of distributors does not vary statistically, either they are or
not vertically integrated (related with any conglomerate)
H1: µ1 < µ2, that is, indicators vary statistically either they are or not vertically integrated
(related with any conglomerate)
The test is meaningful every time the statistic (Montgomery and Runger, 1997):
21
21
11nn
S
XXTo
p +
−= < 2; 21 −+− nntα , in which
2)1()1(
21
222
2112
−+−+−
=nn
SnSnS p
This test has been done twice, the first time only the American profit was considered, and the
second time, the world profit of productions.
Since the real averages and standard-deviations of all the movie universe are known, a test t will
be used in the values obtained in the samples, complemented by the following hypothesis: (Anderson,
2005)
The distribution of population follows a regular distribution, supported by the fact that the
sample is big enough for such consideration
Variables of relation between distributors and great conglomerates and performance of
distributors are independent.
The safety intervals tested will be 1%, 5% and 10%.
6. Results and Discussion
Figure 1 shows a generic chain of movie making. In the picture there is what is understood by
distributors, which is the object of this study. There are also the conglomerates, that can be understood
as great organizations that hold the production and several stages before the production, for example,
Disney studios.
13 / 22
PublicCinemas
Sales
Production
Artists
Location
Vestments
Equipments
MarketingElectronic editoration
Scripts
DistributorsProduction steps Conglomerates ClientsDistributorsProduction steps Conglomerates Clients
Stunts
Figure 1 – movie making chain – Source: organized by authors
Note: This chain considers only the main stages of movie making, not taking into consideration support (or secondary) links that are also used, such as: electric power, catering services, accommodations, among others.
The stages are as follows:
Scripts: The creation of the story used in movies. It is usually done by independent authors.
Location: It is the location where the movies will be made. The most common locations
nowadays, due to an extremely competitive cost, are New Zealand and Canada.
Costumes: Creation of the clothes the actors will wear in the movies.
Electronic Editing: Both stages of scene development, using graphic computering, and the
movie editing.
Equipments: The equipments used both in shooting and editing the movie.
Artists: Both famous and new actors who worked in the movie.
Stunts: The actors that still are not acknowledged by the media.
Production: The making of the movie itself.
Sales: The activity of selling the movie to movie theaters. It also includes movie delivery.
Marketing: The activity of showing the movie to the public and to attract them into the movie
theaters.
14 / 22
Qualitative Analysis
The results of the qualitative analysis are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 – qualitative analysis of the relations in the movie making chain.
Scrip
ts
Loca
tion
Cos
tum
es
Elet
roni
c Ed
iting
Equi
pmen
ts
Arti
sts
Stun
ts
Prod
uctio
n
Sale
s/M
arke
ting
Scripts (1) W-W Location (2) L-W (3) W-L Costumes (4) W-W Eletronic Editing (5) W-L (6) W-W (7) W-W / L-W Equipments (8) W-W (9) W-W Artists (10)W-L / W-W Stunts (11)W-W Production Sales/Marketing (12)W-W Source: organized by authors Note 1: in the above table, the relation L-W (Lose-win) or W-L (Win-Lose) mean that some lose while others become stronger, and W-W means Win-Win (when some become stronger the others are also stronger) These relations are numbered above and explained below:
1. Great offers of scripts in the growing market. Industry offers a partnership between good
scripts and productions.
2. Eletronic editing has been replacing big location in most movies.
3. Great amount of locations in the market, besides an increase in prices due to the demand of
movies.
4. Producers are making their own costumes, decreasing the production costs. The increasing
demand also helps the growth of the market.
5. With the increasing electronic editing, we can see several animation movies competing with
real actor movies, which open a market to this kind of movie.
6. With the increase of technology of electronic editing movies can have more audio-visual
resources, which makes it a movie differentiator factor. Besides, location costs can be decreased by
using electronic editing.
7. At the same time, new effects attract the audience, which makes it a more demanding
audience, and therefore, increases costs of future productions.
8. The increase of equipment offer decreases costs to buying new technologies.
15 / 22
9. This increase decreases production costs.
10. When actors are acknowledged by the media, their salaries rise, and also does the production
costs. Therefore, good names mean good box office profits, but oligopoly of big conglomerates may
lead to an artistic decrease in quality.
11. Entertainment industry creates a dream world, which makes people wish to work in it, even
with low salaries. This “fantasy” feeling creates a great power of bargain for movie production.
12. Just like any other chain, a good distribution assures a great reach for the product, and a
bigger audience. At the same time, good productions attract audience. This is a relationship of extreme
partnership. For a good capillarity, good funds are needed, and distributors that have more access to
funds and quality products should have a better performance than others.
Through the analysis of the above-mentioned relations and the comparison with previous studies,
we can notice that some topics are important for a good performance of a movie making chain:
Highly qualified professionals: the market already has a great amount of professionals
specialized in making movies, both actors and directors, and electronic editors. Therefore, it is
necessary that the movie company has access to highly qualified professional. This idea is enforced
when we notice the increasing demand of the audience, which results in the need for more elaborated
productions.
Big marketing capability: each time more and more entertainment creations come for a public
of different tastes and genders, including those that go straight into their home: video games, DVDs,
TV networks, both paid or public, among other. Therefore, movie companies must have intense
marketing campaigns to get the audience into the movie theaters.
Distribution capability: in a world ruled by Internet, access to productions is faster and faster,
and most of the times the movie is available in the internet even before its release in movie theaters.
This way, without a solid distribution structure, movie companies will not be able to compete with this
distribution.
High capability of debts: in several point of the SWOT analysis, and even in the above analysis,
costs are weak points, and therefore, movie companies with little capability of debts will face
difficulties to shoot their movies.
16 / 22
Based on these facts, we can infer that it is necessary that movie producers and distributors are
connected to big corporations that can launch an intense marketing campaign for these productions and
that have a high capability of debts, which allows to maintain a solid distribution structure and also has
available skilled labor so that the production time is the smallest possible, which results bigger gross.
From these considerations, the parameters for the quantitative analysis of this research are
established, seeking to verify if distributors connected to big corporations (vertically integrated) results
in a performance (gross/budget) that is better than if they were independent.
Considering the steps described in the methodology, the quantitative analysis was done and it is
shown below, analyzing only American and world market. The American market was taken into
consideration because it is the most representative of them all.
In this analysis, it was used a sample of 93 distributors and 900 movies, which are all the main
distributors and world releases since 1989.
This sample was divided into distributors that are or aren’t part of great conglomerates and
budget obtained in both American and world market. The budget considered in this study was the same
for both profits.
Quantitative Analysis considering the results obtained only in the USA
Table 4 shows the results of this analysis:
Table 4 – results of quantitative analysis in the USA market
SAMPLE 1 (no vertical integration)
SAMPLE 2 (vertical
integration)
2 SAMPLES TOGETHER
THEORETICAL INFORMATION
Average 2,48 0,96 * Variance (σ2) 69,59 0,30 0,35 * Standard-deviation (σ) 8,34 0,54 0,59 * Size 199 492 * Degree of liberty 689 * Z (µ1 - µ2) 1,52 * Zc (1%), significance of 99% 1,53 **; *** Zc (5%), significance of 95% 1,16 **; **** Zc (10%), significance of 90% 0,98 **; **** Source: organized by the authors * = value calculated based on the samples ** = value of the critical region, calculated with the significance show and based on tables from Anderson (2005) *** = hypothesis not rejected **** = hypothesis rejected Note: in this test, the Z value calculated from the sample is compared with the critical region. If the Z value is higher than the critical value, so the Ho hypothesis must be rejected.
17 / 22
With the data above mentioned we can notice that for 90 and 95% of the reliability degree the
value is within the critical region that leads to a rejection of Ho. That means that there are evidences
that the result obtained by distributors, integrated or not, results in a different performance in the USA
market.
As for 99% of the reliability degree Ho is not rejected, and therefore, evidences are not
established to connect the performance of distributors to the fact that they are or not related to great
conglomerates, considering the world market.
With theses tests we can consider that are statistical evidences that integrated movie film
distributors have better performance (gross/budget) than the non integrated distributors, considering 90
or 95% of significance.
Quantitative Analysis considering the results obtained in the world market
Table 5 shows the results of this analysis.
Table 5 – results of the quantitative analysis in the world market
SAMPLE 1 (no vertical integration)
SAMPLE 2 (vertical
integration)
2 SAMPLES TOGETHER
THEORETICAL INFORMATION
Average 4,98 1,89 * Variance (σ2) 100,65 2,41 1,02 * Standard-deviation (σ) 10,03 1,55 1,01 * Size 101 239 * Degree of liberty 338 * Z (µ1 - µ2) 3,10 * Zc (1%), significance of 99% 2,60 **; *** Zc (5%), significance of 95% 1,98 **; **** Zc (10%), significance of 90% 1,66 **; **** Source: organized by the authors * = value calculated based on the samples ** = value of the critical region, calculated with the significance show and based on tables from Anderson (2005) *** = hypothesis not rejected **** = hypothesis rejected Note: in this test, the Z value calculated from the sample is compared with the critical region. If the Z value is higher than the critical value, so the Ho hypothesis must be rejected. In this case we can also verify that for all degrees of reliability the value is within the critical
region that leads to a rejection of Ho. That means that there are evidences that the result obtained by
distributors, integrated or not, results in a different performance in the world market.
18 / 22
In other words, we can say that statistically the integrated movie film distributors have better
performance (gross/budget) than the non integrated distributors, considering 90, 95 or 99 % of
significance.
7. Discussion
Complementing the discussions already made to the results, we can notice that there is a big gap
in the chain analysis in all operations literature in Brazil and in the world, but mainly when it is about
so-called creative industries, such as television, movies, theater, among others.
This gap becomes even deeper when we see that in nowadays world these industries are already
overcoming traditional industries; therefore, an analysis of how effective the production process of
these “products” as well as its entire operation is a topic to be discussed in future researches.
It is important to notice that both qualitative and quantitative analysis complement each other in
the analysis of what is necessary to these industries that are part of great conglomerates so that they
have a differentiated success.
And to confirm it we can quote the great fusions in the entertainment industry, especially the
exciting fusions between the companies Time and Warner, which created a mega corporation but full of
controversies in their markets.
This study seeks to fill this gap bringing analysis to show that it is really necessary that producers
and distributors are linked to great corporations, so that they can offer certain stability to operations in
this kind of enterprise.
It is interesting to notice that the only exception is inside the USA when the demanding degree of
the analysis is raised to 99%. In this case we can notice that the so-called independent distributors and
those linked to great corporations have statistically the same performances.
However, this is probably because of the maturity of the American market and the fact that the
entire movie industry is based on the consumption cycle of the north-American population.
As a result of this study, it is evident that, in order to have a consistent movie making chain, it
must be linked to a great corporation and have a highly trained professional staff, an intense marketing
campaign, a distribution capability able to compete with the Internet and a high capability of debts.
19 / 22
8. Conclusions
This paper has tried to contribute with the study of administration of operations in creative
industries relating performance (gross/budget) to vertical integration (if distributors are or not part of
great corporations).
Initial qualitative analysis has shown that, to be successful in this market, distributors must
have:
Highly skilled professional team able to deliver an unpublished product as fast as possible.
An intense marketing campaign that can draw people from their homes into movie theaters,
besides making movies more attractive than home entertainment (TV networks, DVDs, internet, video
games, etc.)
A distribution capability than can compete with the capillarity and speed of Internet. And also
with the selling of illegal copies of movies.
A high capability of debts to assure that they always have the best professionals, equipments, and
work conditions, to respond to the demanding public.
Qualitative results confirm this analysis, in which performance (gross/budget) of either vertically
integrated or non integrated distributors was analyzed.
The results of this study have shown that, except for the American market, considering a
meaningful degree of 99%, we can verify that there are evidences that results obtained from vertically
integrated distributors show different performances than those that are not vertically integrated, both in
the American and world market.
In short, we can say that vertically integrated distributors (linked to great corporations) have
better performances (gross/budget) than those that are not vertically integrated, both in the American
and world market.
Even with almost the entire amount of movies and distributors since 1989, this study has a few
restrictions:
We were not able to find data to verify the existence of any other important market in the world
(for example, Europe) that may have a different result, and, in the available data (e.g. Brazil)
differences are so big that added an oblique direction in this analysis.
20 / 22
The budget of movies was closed, which means it was not possible to verify quantitively the
strength of links, because the composition of costs can’t be analyzed.
9. References
ANDERSON JR., E.G. and PARKER, G.G. (2002) “The effect of learning on the make/buy decision”, Production and Operations Management, vol.11, n.3, Fall.
ANDERSON, D. (2005) “Estatística aplicada à Administração e Economia”, Translation from the 2nd american edition, Pioneira Thomson Learning.
BARNEY, J.B., (1999) “How a firm’s capabilities affect boundary decisions”, Sloan Management Review, Spring pp. 137-145.
BOXOFFICEGURU (2005), site with film statistics available in internet, accessed in September, 5th, 2005, http://www.boxofficeguru.com/film.htm.
BUZZELL, R. D. (1983) “Is vertical integration profitable?” Harvard Business Review, pp. 92-102, January-February.
CHANDLER JR., A. D. (1962) “Strategy and structure: chapters on the history of the industrial enterprise”, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CHANDLER JR., A. D. (1977) “The visible hand: The managerial resolution in American business”, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
CHOPRA, S. and MEINDL, P. “Gerenciamento da Cadeia de Suprimentos”, São Paulo: Prentice Hall, 2003. 465 p.
COASE, R.H. (1937) “The nature of the firm”, Economica, v.4, n.1, p.386-405, Nov.
COLUMBIA (2005) site available in internet accessed in September, 3rd, 2005, http://www.columbia.com.
D’AVENI, R. A. and RAVENSCRAFT, D. J. (1994) “Economies of integration versus bureaucracy costs: does vertical integration improve performance?”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 37, no.5, pp. 1167-1206.
DALE, B. G. and CUNNINGHAM, M. T. (1983) “The importance of factors other than cost considerations in make or buy decisions”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, August, vol.4, n.3, pp. 43-54.
DISNEY (2005) site available in internet accessed in September, 3rd, 2005, http://www.disney.com.
FINE, C. H. (1999) “Mercados em evolução contínua: conquistando vantagem competitiva num mundo em constante mutação”, Campus, Rio de Janeiro.
FINE, C. H. and WHITNEY, D. E. (1995) “Is the make-buy decision process a core competence?”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass..
FOX (2005) site available in internet accessed in September, 3rd, 2005, http://www.fox.com.
FURUBOTN, E. and RICHTER, R. (1991) “The new institutional economics: an assessment”, College Station: Texas A&M Press.
21 / 22
GRANT, R. M. (1991) “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation”, California Management Review, Spring, pp. 114-135.
HARRIGAN, K. R., (1984) “Formulating vertical integration strategies”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 638-652.
HAYES, R. and WHEELWRIGHT, S.C. (1984) “Restoring our competitive edge: competition through manufacturing”, Wiley, New York.
HIGGINS, C. C. (1955) “Make-or-buy re-examined”, Harvard Business Review, 33, pp. 109-119.
LAMBERT, D.M., COOPER, M.C., PAGH, J.D. (1998) “Supply Chain Management: implementation, issues and research opportunities”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, v.9, n.2, p. 1-19.
LAMMING, R.; JOHNSEN, T.; ZHENG, J.; HARLAND, C.; (2000) “An initial classification of supply networks”. International Journal of Production and Operations Management, vol.20, no.6, pp. 675-691.
MGM (2005) site available in internet accessed in September, 3rd, 2005, http://www.mgm.com
MONTENEGRO, K. (1995) “Technical dialog as an incentive for vertical integration in the semiconductor industry”, Management Science, vol.41, no.10, October.
MONTGOMERY, D., RUNGER, G. (1994) “Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers”. Editora John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
MPOYI, R. T.; (2003) “Vertical integration: strategic characteristics and competitive implications”. Competitiveness Review, Vol. 13 Issue 1, pp.44-55.
NIELSÉN, T. (2004) “Understanding the experience industry. A Swedish perspective on creativity”, Majornas Copy Print AB, Gothenburg, Sweden.
NUMBERS (2005) site available in internet accessed in September, 3rd, 2005, http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html.
PADILLO, J. M. and DIABY, M. (1999) “A multiple-criteria decision methodology for the make-or-buy problem”. International Journal of Production Research. Vol. 37, no. 14, pp. 3203-3229.
RAVID, A. (1999) “Information, Blockbusters, and Stars: a Study of the Film Industry”, The journal of business, Vol. 72, no 4, 463-492. October.
RUMELT, R. P. (1974) “Strategy, structure and economic performance”, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
SIMCHI-LEVI, D.; KAMINSKY, P.; SIMCHI-LEVI, E. (2003) “Cadeia de suprimentos: projeto e gestão”, Bookman, Porto Alegre.
SLACK, N.; CHAMBERS, S.; JOHNSTON, R. (2002) “Administração da produção”, Atlas, São Paulo, 2002.
SLACK, N. and LEWIS, M. (2001) “Operations Strategy”, Prentice Hall, New York.
SONY (2005) site available in internet accessed in September, 3rd, 2005, http://www.sony.com
SORENSON, O. (2003) “Interdependency and adaptability: organizational learning and the long-term effect of integration”, Management Science, vol.49, no.4, April.
UNIVERSAL (2005) site available in internet accessed in September, 3rd, 2005, http://www.universal.com.
22 / 22
WARNER (2005) site available in internet accessed in September, 3rd, 2005, http://www.warner.com.
ZYLBERSTAJN, D. (1995) “Estruturas de governança e coordenação do agribusiness: uma aplicação da Nova Economia das Instituições” São Paulo, 237p. Tese (Livre-Docência) – Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade, Universidade de São Paulo.