Conclusion part 2
Strategies and availability
Part 2 of this thesis has attempted to answer the final two secondary research questions: What were the strategies of Norwegian film distributors after 2008? And How does shifts in the circulation power of local distributors affect the availability of Norwegian movies?
When strategies were examined as patterns, we found a division between high-resource strategies and low-resource strategies. This division is reminiscent of Hennig-Thurau and Houston’s (2019) distinction between “major” and “independent”. All the high-resource distributors in Norway are part of larger multinational corporations.
The division is also reminiscent of Thompson’s (2013) distinction between the logic of economic and symbolic capital. The high-resource distributors rely more on economic capital, and the low-resource distributors rely more on symbolic capital. Most low-resource distributors that thrive over time are specialists. In this position, the symbolic capital is the most valuable, as it takes the form of expertise and connections that are not easily replaced. However, as access to economic capital is relatively low due to the limited market, symbolic capital is also important for Norwegian high-resource distributors. They cannot create barriers to entry in the market and therefore must rely on good relationships with producers, cinemas, and policymakers.
In addition to the high- vs. low-resource patterns commonly found in all cultural industries, a pattern of varying degrees of dependence on local titles was identified. This pattern is likely to be found in other cultural industries where foreign titles have a significant share of the market. For local distributors, foreign titles carry less risk than local titles, and serve as the main risk reduction strategy.
I have also identified five viable market positions for Norwegian film distributors. Two of them, market lead and local content lead, require high-resource strategies. While it is possible to imagine the local content lead could being a low-resource distributor, this would not be a healthy situation for local movies. In the period examined, the local content lead has also been local-led. Most low-resource distributors are specialists. The leading distributor in the independent position has tended to have slightly higher resources than other low-resource distributors, but the independent position still seems the most difficult position to remain in.
Use of common cultural industries strategies
Chapter 1 presented an overview of cultural industries strategies in existing literature. Comps is the only strategy we can reasonably assume all local distributors use. Based on the case studies, it appears local distributors are generally good at predicting admissions for upcoming projects across all budget ranges, although they tend to err on the side of optimism.
While it is difficult to point to any specific instances of exploiting talent pools in my material, one must assume that Norwegians are relatively similar to non-Norwegians in that they also value creative work in more ways than monetary.
All local film distributors also use windowing to extract the maximum amount of revenue for each project. However, we see clear differences between high and low-resource distributors. High resource distributors often have shorter cinematic windows, more defined home entertainment windows, more active pricing strategies, and access to multiple streaming windows. So, while windowing is available to all distributors, the ability to use windowing strategies is also limited by resource level.
I further argued that the more resource intensive strategies – overproduction, increased production value, heavy marketing, and bundling – are unlikely to be viable for local film distributors. This remains true after examining the strategies of local film distributors, too. However, we do find variations on these strategies adapted to smaller markets.
Some limited examples of bundling were found. Nordisk Film Distribusjon created the Nordisk Film+ service, which was included in various subscription services, include those where Egmont had multiple ownership interests. Nordisk Film Distribusjon’s deals with Netflix, Viaplay and TV2 Play were also made on the strength of their catalogue and could be considered bundling. As only distributors were interviewed, the methods chosen for this thesis were not suited to discussing instances of bundling by distributors, such as block booking, as a way to exert power. It is worth noting, however, that the only public conflicts between cinemas and distributors over booking terms since 2008 have involved Hollywood subsidiaries1.
In this thesis, only the production and marketing budgets of 2019 releases have been examined. Further studies of the relationship between these budgets and admissions are needed to understand the impact of production value and marketing on admissions. However, the limited effect of marketing and production budgets in 2019 suggests that neither heavy marketing nor increased production value are effective as risk reduction or in creating barriers to entry.
Over-production in the sense of a single hit covering the losses of multiple losses was not found to be a viable strategy for local distributors. They did, however, exploit different dialectics between hits and catalogues. Most significant was the inverted overproduction strategy formulated by Nordisk Film Distribusjon. A company that delivers a string of on-budget titles can survive the occasional miss as the catalogue carries the hits, and not vice versa.
Secondly, a dialectic between the known and the original within the slates of several of the distributors was apparent. Most of Nordisk Film Distribusjon’s local titles since 2008 are based on known stories and have had high audience estimates, but the company has occasionally released smaller and more artistically ambitious titles from directors and production companies it either had or wanted to build a relationship with. On the opposite side of the spectrum, a large share of Norsk Filmdistribusjon’s local titles were based on original stories with artistic ambitions, but its one market path title based on known characters brought in the bulk of the company’s local admissions. While this balancing of titles that generate economic or symbolic capital cannot be described as overproduction, it is a way of leveraging the existing economic or symbolic value of the catalogue to gain economic or symbolic “hits”.
Further, having parent companies with long-term commitments to the film industry can also be leveraged into a form of overproduction. If profits are measured in 10-year increments rather than yearly, a once-in-a-decade hit might be enough to cover an otherwise unprofitable catalogue. The same applies to distributors that own of production companies. During the first COVID-19 lockdowns in March 2020, one informant said that they were discussing if and how they could save production companies that feared bankruptcy because of delays and stoppages.
The main risk reduction strategy for local distributors, however, centred around the dialectic between local and foreign movies. Foreign titles carry lower inherent risk than local titles as they are often finished when acquired, have often proven their quality through reviews or festivals, or are made in Hollywood by studios with access to strategies such as increased production value and heavy marketing.
As distribution rights for foreign titles are also cheaper, they can be acquired at a volume that allows for a relatively predictable frequency of hits – and when a foreign title is a hit, the local distributor keeps a higher share of the revenue. Foreign hits can therefore not only cover the cost of the foreign catalogue but also offset the risk of the local catalogue.
For Norwegian film distributors, their degree of dependency of local and foreign titles therefore becomes the key strategic decision. Most distributors are foreign-dominated, and the success or failure of local titles has limited effect on the economy of the companies. Since 2013, however, many distributors have been transitioning to being foreign-led. Foreign-led distributors also get most of their admissions from foreign titles, but they also regularly release local titles and invest significantly in them.
Nordisk Film Distribusjon was the only company to consistently be locally led. A locally led company has its biggest investment in local titles, which also generate most of the admissions, but also relies on a steady stream of foreign titles as a safety net. Finally, only Euforia and to a lesser extent Mer Filmdistribusjon have pursued a local-dominated strategy. For the local-dominated companies, foreign titles are less of a safety net and more of a way to fill spare capacity when in between local titles.
Positions and power
The four positions held by local film distributors exert varying degree of circulation power. The main division is between the high-resource positions – market lead and local content lead, and the low-resource positions. There is, however, also a notable difference between the market lead and the local content lead when it comes to local titles.
A more detailed examination of circulation power in cinemas could be made using more data, such as the number of screens and seats, share of opening weekends, and admissions in the final week of the original cinema run. Of the data used in this thesis, the preferred release dates are the best available indicator.
Nordisk Film Distribusjon, the local content lead and SF Studios, the market lead in my research, released most of their titles in the attractive autumn period. Nordisk Film Distribusjon also frequently secured the two most attractive dates, December 25 and the first weekend in November. SF Studios’ lower release frequency for local titles in November and December is, however, likely due to their Hollywood titles, which often claim these attractive dates. Among the low-resource distributors, it is not possible to make any significant claims about the relative circulation of power in cinemas of the various positions or distributors. Euforia and Norsk Filmdistribusjon, both companies that have held the lead independent position, have perhaps negotiated slightly better dates overall than the others. The very smallest distributors are also over-represented in the “dead period” from May to August.
The length of the cinematic windows is also an indication of the distributors’ circulation power vis-à-vis the cinemas. Distributors with shorter windows are likely less worried about upsetting their relationship with cinemas than those that keep longer windows. By this measure, the market lead and the local content lead still have higher circulation power than the others. However, SF Studios in the market lead position have shorter windows than Nordisk Film Distribusjon in the local content lead position. Again it is difficult to separate the various low-resource positions, but in both the historical data and the 2019 observational data the Norsk Filmdistribusjon in the lead independent position had the longest windows.
When the total admissions are considered, there is little variation in the lengths of the cinema runs for local titles released in 2019. This might reflect that the low-resource distributors chose less competitive periods for their releases, or that the differences in circulation power between the distributors is not very big in cinemas.
One factor might also be that the cinemas have considerable power vis-a-vi distributors. It was cinemas that stopped the day-and-date experiment with Barn, as it would be impossible without their blessing. In the cinemas, then, the circulation power of the distributors has relatively little impact on the availability of Norwegian movies.
Based on the 2019 data, the influence of cinemas is also a limiting factor in the home entertainment market. In both case studies, distributors expressed wanting short windows to capitalise on attention from the cinematic release. However, most of the local 2019 movies were not released in home entertainment markets until they were well and thoroughly done in cinemas. In most cases, this means they had not been playing outside Oslo for weeks.
From the distributor’s point of view, this indicates windows in 2019 were too long. If they had been at 48 days, the shortest window any distributor had used or expressed that they wanted, most titles would have reached 90% or more of their admissions.
| Title | Admissions at 48 days | Admissions by EST release | 48 days to EST | Total admissions | Share by EST | Share at 48 days | Share between 48 and EST |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amundsen | 202,189 | 207,586 | 5,397 | 209,485 | 99.09% | 96.52% | 2.58% |
| Ut og stjæle hester | 100,809 | 104,557 | 3,748 | 105,685 | 98.93% | 95.39% | 3.55% |
| Jeg ser deg | |||||||
| Askeladden - I Soria Moria slott | 224,250 | 257,865 | 33,615 | 26,1217 | 98.72% | 85.85% | 12.87% |
| Hjelperyttereren | 1,544 | 1,544 | 0 | 1,544 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 0.00% |
| Barn | 18,525 | 19,555 | 1,030 | 21,942 | 89.12% | 84.43% | 4.69% |
| Kaptein Sabeltann og Den magiske diamant | 241,035 | 249,701 | 8,666 | 256,916 | 97.19% | 93.82% | 3.37% |
| Astrup - Flammen over Jølster | 22,540 | 26,549 | 4,009 | 26,769 | 99.18% | 84.20% | 14.98% |
| Villmarksbarna - En eventyrlig reise | 13,173 | 13,541 | 368 | 15,256 | 88.76% | 86.35% | 2.41% |
| Disco | 38,895 | 40,214 | 1,319 | 42,429 | 94.78% | 91.67% | 3.11% |
| Brillebjørn på ferie | 38,434 | 40,371 | 1,937 | 41,091 | 98.25% | 93.53% | 4.71% |
| Swingers | 9,988 | 10,096 | 108 | 10,096 | 100.00% | 98.93% | 1.07% |
| Spionen | 79,743 | 81,245 | 1,502 | 81,501 | 99.69% | 97.84% | 1.84% |
| Operasjon Mumie | 95,861 | 98,998 | 3,137 | 101,505 | 97.53% | 94.44% | 3.09% |
| De dødes tjern | 17,573 | 17,573 | 0 | 17,628 | 99.69% | 99.69% | 0.00% |
| Snekker Andersen og Julenissen: Den vesle bygda som glømte at det var jul | 407,018 | 418,294 | 11,276 | 418,891 | 99.86% | 97.17% | 2.69% |
| Håp | 42,600 | 46,506 | 3,906 | 46,667 | 99.66% | 91.29% | 8.37% |
| Tunnelen | 214,066 | 219,301 | 5,235 | 221,269 | 99.11% | 96.74% | 2.37% |
| Born2Drive | 33,221 | 33,703 | 482 | 33,733 | 99.91% | 98.48% | 1.43% |
| Pyscobitch | 90,931 | 98,091 | 7,160 | 106,497 | 92.11% | 85.38% | 6.72% |
While cinemas on one hand seem to give local movies from low-resource distributors comparable treatment to those of high-resource distributors, their resistance to shortening the cinematic window affects low-resource distributors more than high-resource distributors. Cinemas therefore impede low-resource distributors when they enter the home entertainment market.
In the home entertainment market, the differences in circulation power are significant2. The high-resource positions achieve higher prominence and availability for their local movies, especially for older titles. In home entertainment markets, the slight edge that the Nordisk Film Distribusjon in the local content lead seemed to have over the SF Studios in market lead in the cinemas becomes more pronounced. Especially when their SVOD deals with Netflix and TV2 Play are taken into consideration. If a streamer only needs one deal with a local distributor, the local content lead is the first choice.
Among the low-resource distributors it is again difficult to identify significant differences. Older titles from low-resource distributors are very rarely given any kind of prominence, and neither the NFI spot checks nor the observations of the 2019 titles indicate significant differences. Euforia did achieve notably better prominence for several of its titles, many of which were released when the company held the lead independent position. However, the next company to occupy that role, Norsk Filmdistribusjon, has had low prominence for their titles. Compared to the high-resource distributors, however, low-resource distributors collectively achieved lower prominence and struggle to even be available not only in SVOD services but also some transactional platforms.
More focused studies are needed to understand the nature and effects of circulation power in both cinemas and home entertainment markets. These should include foreign titles as well as local to be able to measure their degree of diversity and, if possible, seek to understand the relationship between prominence in cinemas and platforms and audience behaviour.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the distribution company has significant influence on not only the prominence, but also the availability of local titles in the home entertainment market. Nordisk Film Distribusjon’s dominant position as local content lead might serve as an effective barrier to entry against other distributors in certain parts of the home entertainment market. If local, regional, and global streaming services are satisfied with getting six or seven of the most popular Norwegian movies every year, then Nordisk Film Distribusjon will cover their needs. Even if other titles remain available in libraries and transactional markets, the living Norwegian film history will therefore shrink.
References
Nordisk Film Kino in Oslo was in conflict with both UIP and Disney in 2014 over the rental fees (Aune 2014; Vollan 2014) and with Disney again over the shortened and missing cinematic windows in 2021 (Aas 2021).↩︎
While the circulation power of foreign movies has not been examined here, it is likely that Hollywood titles have far higher prominence than any local titles. One indication is that Hollywood titles typically enter the EST market at NOK 169, a higher price point than any Norwegian title in 2019.↩︎