Re: Oscar Political Business Cycle
Sure it does if you think that high box office movies are also likely to be prize winners! Everybody wants to release their film at Christmas, but unless it is really really good you know that you are going to play second fiddle to the good movies. Thus you release at some other time if you aren't going to do well at the box office. - - Bill Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/05/04 01:14AM 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?
Re: Oscar Political Business Cycle
I think that's a bit backward. It's more likely that those who choose whatis released when want the ability to say nominated for six Golden Globes or ride the Oscar nomination of an actor/actress. Movies like Cold Mountain, Mystic River, and Lost in Translation aren't going to get the viewers that an epic like Lord of the Rings will, and critical acclaim doesn't go as far in June as it does in December-February. D At 06:56 AM 1/5/2004 -0500, William Dickens wrote: Sure it does if you think that high box office movies are also likely to be prize winners! Everybody wants to release their film at Christmas, but unless it is really really good you know that you are going to play second fiddle to the good movies. Thus you release at some other time if you aren't going to do well at the box office. - - Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/05/04 01:14AM 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?
Re: Oscar Political Business Cycle
Sure it does if you think that high box office movies are also likely to be prize winners! Everybody wants to release their film at Christmas, but unless it is really really good you know that you are going to play second fiddle to the good movies. Thus you release at some other time if you aren't going to do well at the box office. - - Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/05/04 01:14AM 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?
Re: Oscar Political Business Cycle
Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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? Quite possilby -- but why is that not a suitable explanation? 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? That one year's interest all accrues to the decision-maker at one time. If that decision-maker is not taking into account revenues from other movies, it doesn't have to be big to sway the decision. Furthermore. Dan Lewis: I think that's a bit backward. It's more likely that those who choose whatis released when want the ability to say nominated for six Golden Globes or ride the Oscar nomination of an actor/actress. Movies like Cold Mountain, Mystic River, and Lost in Translation aren't going to get the viewers that an epic like Lord of the Rings will, and critical acclaim doesn't go as far in June as it does in December-February. I think you're on to something here ... if the main value (in a revenue sense) of an Oscar is increased ticket sales, you want to have a movie that's still in theaters when the nominations and awards are announced. How long does the average movie stay in theaters? Is a movie released in January 2003 likely to still be in theaters in February and March 2004? --Robert
Re: Oscar Political Business Cycle
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Bryan Caplan wrote: 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? Basically the only way to win an Oscar these days, unless you come up with the insanely good smach hit (a la Titanic), you have to wage an expensive campaign involving massive advertising, video/DVD's sent to academy voters, etc. Thus, you have to include the advertising cost in the calculation you describe. Given the rather strong amnesia regarding Oscars, I'd say it's the best bet to load up on December. F Ro
Re: Oscar Political Business Cycle
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?
Re: Oscar Political Business Cycle
It could partially be a function of the holiday season. More movies tend to be released around holidays anyway (also around July 4, for example), given that people are more likely to see a movie during these times (since they have the day off). Not only are people more apt to go because they have time off, there's probably a significant seasonal effect. People seem to prefer seeing Christmas-themed movies around Christmas and action blockbuster movies in the summer. Taking off from this, what kind of movies win the Best Picture award? Generally it's serious type movies about feelings, issues, and whatnot, as opposed to Spider-Man or The Hulk. If there's a seasonal advantage (maybe people like action in the summer when they can go out and do things?) for non-serious movies in the summer, it might make sense to release the Oscar candidates in the winter season (and if the holidays are a time for family and whatnot, there may be some advantage to selling a serious movie at that time as well). It'd be interesting to see how things work for somewhere like India (Bollywood), which I think has its big awards in June. -Original Message- From: ArmChair List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bryan Caplan Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 2:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Oscar Political Business Cycle 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?
Re: Oscar Political Business Cycle
I would suggest it's a self-enforcing cycle. In the past, the Academy has tended to award its Best Picture / Best Director cherries to movies released closer to its decision-making time. The studios, seeking Oscars to add to their prestige, notice this, and release more of what they consider their prestige pictures around the end of the year. The Academy awards more of these pictures with Oscars, and the trend continues. -JP --- Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? __ Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
Oscar Political Business Cycle
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?
Re: Oscar Political Business Cycle
Speaking of December 2003 and January 2004, in the spirit of all the predictions made each year at this time by media talking heads I'd like to make the following equally insightful predictions: In 2004, the world will experience an earthquake, a flood, and some sunny days. The US Post Office will lose somebody's mail. Somebody will make a bold peace plan which the media will hail, and which will accomplish nothing. Some people will kill other people. The US will hold a presidential election, and the victor will be either a Republican or a Democrat. Fundamentalist Muslims will hate America, nearly as much as the French and the Democrats do. Iowans will support free markets and demand ethanol subsidies. The Dow Jones Industrial Average will rise, or fall, or both. The news media will find something, somewhere to blame on Ronald Reagan. Happy Old Year, David Levenstam
