ƒ Paper: Vertical integration in the supply chain of international movie industry [004-0370]

ƒ Name of the conference: Seventeenth Annual Conference of POMS, Boston, MA, April 28 – May 1, 2006

Authors:

ƒ Prof. Deive G Rodrigues – Master's degree student of Business Administration at EAESP/FGV-SP – [email protected] ƒ Prof. Aldo F. Bastos – Master's degree student of Business Administration at EAESP/FGV-SP – [email protected] ƒ Prof. João Mario Csillag – Professor of Business Administration at EAESP/FGV-SP – [email protected]

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

1 / 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.

2 / 22

Disadvantages (3)

To make or Vertical to buy integration (3) decision (2) Vantages (3) Increase in the performance by vertical integrationintegration Performance of film industry x Creative vantages of vertical Film industry industries integration (4) (4)

(1): the number indicates the chapter that Question Existing theory Gap in the theory Legend: studies the construct Existing relation Proposal relation 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.

3 / 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;

4 / 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.

5 / 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.

6 / 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 Need of co-ordenation to administer costs due to of tasks, reduces duplicated activities and cuts vertical integration costs (dependent of technology) Improvement of co-ordenation of activities and Need of excessive capability to balance minimum reduces inventory and other expenses uneven efficiency of maps (dependent of technology) 7 / 22

Advantages Disadvantages Avoid tasks which require time, such as emission Companies with little organization of integrated of price lists, communication details and activities don’t enjoy the synergies that contracts. compensate high costs. 3. Competitive benefits 4. Competitive risks Avoid delay in entry of data, services and in Out-of-date processes may be perpetuated markets. Improve technological and market intelligence. Create mobility (or exit) obstacles Create opportunities to create product Connect the company to adjacent businesses) differentiation (increases joined value) Bigger control of company’s economic Lose access to suppliers and distributors’ environment information Create credibility to new products Synergies created through vertical integration may be overestimated or exaggerated Synergies can be created to co-ordenate vertical Managers’ integration was made before verifying activities 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

8 / 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

9 / 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:

ƒ 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

10 / 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 WITH VERTICAL NO VERTICAL INTEGRATION INTEGRATION (are not part of a conglomerate) (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 / Zeitgeist Universal (UNIVERSAL) Goldwyn 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:

11 / 22

ƒ Ho: µ1 = µ2, that is, the performance of distributors does not vary statistically, either they are or not vertically integrated (related with any conglomerate)

ƒ 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):

X − X (n −1)S 2 + (n −1)S 2 To = 1 2 < − t , in which S 2 = 1 1 2 2 α ;n1 +n2 −2 p 1 1 n1 + n2 − 2 S p + n1 n2

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)

ƒ The distribution of population follows a regular distribution, supported by the fact that the sample is big enough for such consideration ƒ 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.

12 / 22

Scripts

Location

Vestments Sales Production Cinemas Public Electronic Marketing editoration

Equipments

Artists

Stunts

Production Distributors Conglomerates Clients steps 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:

ƒ Scripts: The creation of the story used in movies. It is usually done by independent authors. ƒ 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. ƒ Costumes: Creation of the clothes the actors will wear in the movies. ƒ Electronic Editing: Both stages of scene development, using graphic computering, and the movie editing. ƒ Equipments: The equipments used both in shooting and editing the movie. ƒ Artists: Both famous and new actors who worked in the movie. ƒ Stunts: The actors that still are not acknowledged by the media. ƒ Production: The making of the movie itself. ƒ Sales: The activity of selling the movie to movie theaters. It also includes movie delivery. ƒ Marketing: The activity of showing the movie to the public and to attract them into the movie theaters.

13 / 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.

Stunts Stunts Artists Artists Scripts Location Location Costumes Production Production Equipments Equipments Sales/Marketing Eletronic EditingEletronic 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.

14 / 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:

ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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.

15 / 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 SAMPLE 2 2 SAMPLES THEORETICAL (no vertical (vertical TOGETHER INFORMATION integration) integration) 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.

16 / 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 SAMPLE 2 2 SAMPLES THEORETICAL (no vertical (vertical TOGETHER INFORMATION integration) integration) 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.

17 / 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.

18 / 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:

ƒ Highly skilled professional team able to deliver an unpublished product as fast as possible. ƒ 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.) ƒ A distribution capability than can compete with the capillarity and speed of Internet. And also with the selling of illegal copies of movies. ƒ 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: ƒ 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.

19 / 22

ƒ 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.

20 / 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. 21 / 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.

22 / 22