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
