But this wouldn't explain the clustering of *plausible prize-winners* (many of which are not big grossers) around Xmas.
----- Original Message ----- From: William Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, January 3, 2004 9:55 am Subject: Re: Oscar Political Business Cycle > I thought the explanation for the grouping of releases around > holidays was that that was when the box office was biggest. Why > release movies at any other time? If you have a movie that isn't > that great you release it at another time when the competition > won't be as strong for first run box office. > - - Bill Dickens > > William T. Dickens > The Brookings Institution > 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW > Washington, DC 20036 > Phone: (202) 797-6113 > FAX: (202) 797-6181 > E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > AOL IM: wtdickens > > >>> Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/31/03 02:07AM >>> > The Political Business Cycle story has not fared well empirically > in recent years (though Kevin Grier has done interesting work on > Mexico's PBC). But it seems overwhelming in the Oscars. It seems > like roughly half of the big nominees get released in December. > What gives? Is there any way to explain this other than Academy > voters' amnesia? > > I guess there is a small intertemporal benefit - if you could win > Best Picture of 2004 with a January 2004 release, or Best Picture > of 2003 with a December 2003 release, the present value of the > latter prize would presumably be higher. But can that one year's > interest (presumably adjusted for a lower probability of winning > due to tighter deadlines) explain the December lump? > > >
