Essay: What impact does ownership have on the media institutions in the industry you have studied?

In the film industry which we have studied, looking at Cinema city and Odeon I would say that there is a significant impact on what ownership does to the institution. Ownership can have strengths but it can also have disadvantages and I think t has more disadvantages than advantages.

The main advantage of ownership is that all of the cinemas in the chain get all of the newest films out that the institution are showing, being a chain they get all the promotions and technology that all of the other cinemas get as well. Being in chain they also keep high in the market and keep up the completion between other institutions. The other advantage is that the profits are spread across the chain and they do not have to manage their profits, in some points of view this would be a disadvantage. So I would say that ownership does have a big impact on the profits side of the institution as well as keeping everything up to date and keeping the competition high.

The biggest disadvantage of ownership is that the cinemas are all controlled by the head office, all of the schedules and films that are shown are all nationally chosen not by the individual cinema. This ties in with the ability to keep up in the market and have the latest films because the majority of films across these cinemas are high budget Hollywood films. 50% of the top twenty in 2009 were from the USA, owners are becoming too obsessed with the big budget films from the USA, and this is called Hollywoodisation. Owners in chain cinemas are more focused on the profit than what the viewers/customers views are.

Ownership can be a burden, there are some independent cinemas that escape the impact of ownership, they can then choose their own schedule, manage their own profits and organise however they want. These independent cinemas usually become part of a network, networks have less of an impact than ownership but they help out and don’t ask for anything in return. Cinemas can also become a part of Europa; Europa funds institutions to show European films, this comes as a great advantage. Being part of Europa means that the cinemas have to show 23% that are European and in exchange they get payments. If they show more European films hey get increased payments.

Looking at owned institutions and then looking at institutions that are part of a network. I think that the ownership has the biggest impact because it changes companies around and they all rally under one head office. Everything that is to be decided is sent to them. Sometimes it can make institutions better, sometimes it can destroy them. It isn’t necessarily the best impact though. Being a part of a network and being independent doesn’t have a huge impact like ownership but it does help out the institution more.

So in conclusion I would say that ownership has a large impact but isn’t always in the institutions best interest and can ruin the business depending on the aims of the business.

Comparison of Three Cinema Chains

What conclusions can be drawn?

We can conclude that the Odeon is the biggest chain of cinemas out of the three as well as screening nearly double a week as Vue and three times as many as Cinema City. It also shows the most films out of all three but not necessarily the largest variety of films. Cinema city are the most expensive so that cinema would be expected as best quality. The Vue is in a location where families can go to when shopping or afterwards or where teenagers can roam off too when their parents are shopping. The Odeon is located in a Leisure Complex where there is more likely to be adults and people of an older generation because of the other leisure centres such as bowling and swimming as well as restaurants but children are also a possibility. Cinema City is in a location where people would have to go out of their way to reach because it isn’t like the other two in a specific spot where it is noticed, it is there for people who would rather choose to go there and relax out of a crowded location.

How do these cinemas use their strategies to appeal to specific audiences?

The locations are the main factor in their strategies to appeal to specific audiences. Vue is in a shopping mall which means that there will be a lot of children and teenagers who drag their parents in there or escape their parents while they shop. This means that their largest audience are children and teenagers. The price at Vue is lower than both Odeon and Cinema City which also adds to the audience of teenagers and children because they are less likely to have a lot of money. 

Cinema City has the highest price but it is the most secluded and peaceful. This would intrigue adults and the elderly more than teenagers and children but they still have a "kids club" and "Big scream" which both appeal to the children and mothers with their babies. 

Odeon is in between them both because it isn't very specific, I would say it appeals more to adults because it is in a leisure complex with clubs and bowling etc. But when I have been there it has had plenty of children and teenagers as well as elderly people. The price of the Odeon is also in between Vue and Cinema city's price. The Odeon is a more well rounded cinema which isn't directed specifically as such. 

The number of films that each cinema has also effects the audience because teenagers and children as well as most adults will want to see more mainstream films and other adults and the elderly are more inclined to indie films or re showings of other films which is what Cinema city achieves. Whereas the Odeon and Vue have the more mainstream films which appeal to a bigger audience.

We can conclude that Vue is a mainstream cinema where teenagers and others may walk past and decide to just go in and watch a film, Odeon is slightly more sophisticated and is aimed at a higher age group but is still mainstream but Cinema city is very different and aims at everyone but more adults and is not as mainstream.

Mr Seal- Eric Fellner: “The film industry is a hit-driven industry” Essay

Eric Fellner: “The film industry is a hit-driven industry”  

Why might someone say this is true?

Someone might say this is true because some directors and actors are driven by a “big break” which they have in their career, which then pushes them forward into the “limelight”. This can then lead to sequels, spin-offs or different films and opportunities for the actor, director or other crew members. This could be considered in some ways as formulaic, which is what some people may think the film industry is. An example of a “hit-driven” director is George Lucas, George Lucas was a film maker when he joined college and created short films throughout his life until his “big break” came. This was the film “American Graffiti” which then led him on to create the “Star Wars” trilogy and then the three prequels to them as well as writing for Steven Spielberg (who is also a “hit-driven” director), aiding him in the “Indiana Jones” series of films. Now he is one of the most well known directors across the world because of one film that started him off. Another reason people may agree with Eric Fellner’s statement is that there are so many different people in the film industry, this makes it hard to get anywhere without getting a “big break” or having connections. Some people may disagree with the idea of the film industry being a hit-driven industry because some people make one film that makes it in the filming world but do not succeed afterwards. For example, Oren Peli is a one off director who created “Paranormal Activity” and after the film being released he has not produced or announced anything since. It was obviously wasn’t what some people would consider his “big break”. I believe that the film industry is a hit driven industry because of my idol Peter Jackson, Peter Jackson stared off with a few low budget films including “Bad Taste” , “Meet the Feebles” and “Braindead”. He then went on to create heavenly creatures and forgotten silver as he became well known for his previous splatter movies which created a new landmark for him. “The Lord of the Rings” Trilogy would then be what I would consider as his “big break” into the film industry that then lead to more amazing films like “King Kong” and “District 9”. Without having connections or making yourself known, you will get nowhere in the film industry unless you start off small and work your way up. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the hit-driven industry. Therefore, I think someone would agree with Eric Fellner’s statement because there are so many examples of hit driven members of the film industry and there are not many people who get deep into the film industry without a “big break, this is because of the amount of people involved in the film industry.  Even though there are exceptions to this.