Conclusion Part 1

Power Moved

library(tidyverse)
library(gt)

physical_distribution = read_csv2("Function;Norwegian films;Foreign films
Creation;Norwegian production companies for mainly Norwegian audiences;Foreign production companies for international audiences
Commodification;Norwegian distribution and production companies;Norwegian companies and local offices of foreign companies
Dissemination;Cinemas and stores in Norway;Cinemas and stores in Norway
;;")

digital_distribution = read_csv2("Function;Norwegian films;Foreign films
Creation;Norwegian production companies for mainly Norwegian audiences and/or international streaming audiences;Foreign production companies for international audiences
Commodification;Norwegian distribution and production companies, sometimes with foreign intermediaries, or foreign distribution companies;Norwegian or foreign distribution companies
Dissemination;Mainly foreign platforms;Mainly foreign platforms")

In Chapter 1, I argue that digitalisation of home entertainment and the rise of SVOD services not only led to a loss of revenue, but also affected the logic under which film operates. However, while this affects all of the film industry it has an additional impact in countries like Norway where foreign films has a large share of the admissions.

A substantial amount of the local distributors’ revenue came from foreign movies in the physical home entertainment market. Yet, as the digital market took over it was not only a smaller market, it was a market that did not need local distributors. When Hollywood studios release movies in the Norwegian digital home entertainment market, they don’t need boots on the ground. The necessary mouse clicks can be performed anywhere in the world. As a result digitalisation has caused large parts of the Norwegian film industry’s value chain to move abroad.

na.omit(physical_distribution) %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  opt_table_font(font = "Georgia") %>%
  tab_style(style = cell_text(style = "italic"),locations = cells_body(columns = "Function")) %>% 
  tab_style(style = cell_text(weight = "bold"),locations = cells_column_labels())

Table 1: Physical dissemination of films in Norway

Function	Norwegian films	Foreign films
Creation	Norwegian production companies for mainly Norwegian audiences	Foreign production companies for international audiences
Commodification	Norwegian distribution and production companies	Norwegian companies and local offices of foreign companies
Dissemination	Cinemas and stores in Norway	Cinemas and stores in Norway

na.omit(digital_distribution) %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  opt_table_font(font = "Georgia") %>%
  tab_style(style = cell_text(style = "italic"),locations = cells_body(columns = "Function")) %>% 
  tab_style(style = cell_text(weight = "bold"),locations = cells_column_labels())

Table 2: Digital dissemination of films in Norway

Function	Norwegian films	Foreign films
Creation	Norwegian production companies for mainly Norwegian audiences and/or international streaming audiences	Foreign production companies for international audiences
Commodification	Norwegian distribution and production companies, sometimes with foreign intermediaries, or foreign distribution companies	Norwegian or foreign distribution companies
Dissemination	Mainly foreign platforms	Mainly foreign platforms

Terje Colbjørnsen argues that digitalisation should be “understood as a cultural-technological process” as opposed to digitisation, which he understands as “the production of digital content, or the conversion of analogue to digital content” (2015, 19–20). For the Norwegian film industry the effects of digitalisation were less about the digital content, than how digitalisation changed the dynamics between the local and the global film industry.

Ramon Lobato (2019) argues that one of the distinct features of Netflix compared to broadcast television is that it is a global, transnational service. While the impact, and catalogue, of Netflix varies across the globe, it is recognisably the same service everywhere. Netflix’ aspirations are certainly global, and a large part of the company’s Originals strategy is to secure global rights.

Netflix’ transition to a SVOD service allowed it to become a global company in a way that previous distribution technologies could not. Internet-based distribution, whether for movies, music, or news, remove the need for local facilitation and enable greater globalisation. However, this globalisation is also American. Even if Netflix’ content is far more diverse in terms of countries of origin than the output of Hollywood studios, the revenue stream ultimately ends in California.

While American content crossed borders before as well, technology was a limiting factor. Television programming was facilitated by local broadcasters and Hollywood relied on local distributors, local cinemas, and local video stores for distribution. When a Disney film is screened at a local cinema, Disney must share the revenue. When a Disney film is a Disney+ exclusive, nothing is shared, and audiences might choose to stay home. When an HBO show is purchased by a local broadcaster, it generates viewers; when it is an HBO MAX exclusive it is in direct competition with that broadcaster. Now, what used to be a source of revenue for those local broadcasters, cinemas and video stores is now suddenly competition. For the digital global American film industry SVOD services allow them to once again build vertically integrated silos where they can dictate the terms of prominence, financial and legal availability and any content created by outsiders will always be at a disadvantage.

As the streaming logic became the dominant logic of the home entertainment market, it changes from a publishing market to a flow market. A market in which the logic favours individual movies over TV series gives way to a market where the logics favour series more than individual films; a market where a national player could be big locally (both as a part of the national value chain and as a local part of a global value chain) gives way to a market vertically integrated on a global scale; and a market where the points of dissemination are local gives way to a market where the point of dissemination are both individualised and globalised.

Colbjørnsen’s study on Norwegian publishers and their responded to digitalisation found that they were largely able to maintain the status quo. While their passive responses had not succeeded in “building a strong market for ebooks” in Norway, they had been able to keep “Amazon and other international competition” at bay (Colbjørnsen 2015, 93)¹. For local film distributors however, the status quo seems already lost.

References

Colbjørnsen, Terje. 2015. “Continuity in Change: Case Studies of Digitalization and Innovation in the Norwegian Book Industry 2008-2012.” PhD thesis, Oslo: Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo.

Lobato, Ramon. 2019. Netflix Nations: The Geography of Digital Distribution. New York: University Press.

---

1. Which, seen from the perspective of 2022 must be considered a clear success as they have, although to varying degrees, been able to build a strong market for digital audiobooks.