Week 4 - Cri cs and Publics
Eliasberg & Shugan (1997): Film cri cs: in uencers or predictors
Paper in a nutshell
Examines the role that cri cs play in predic ng and/or in uencing the commercial box o ce performance
of mo on pictures. They inves gate aggregate in uence of cri cs on box o ce revenues. They nd that
counterintui vely, cri c reviews have sta s cally insigni cant in uence at the release but they signi cantly
correlate with late box o ce revenue.
Framework/theory
Previous research on cri c’s reviews and their e ects seems inconclusive. Suggests that the role of cri cs
can shape moviegoer’s a endance, suggests a moderate di erent impact for posi ve/nega ve reviews; the
reviews could indicate only moviegoer tastes
Powerful cri c theory: believes that reviews can make or break- hence, it makes sense to target cri cs.
Two possible e ects of cri cs: - In uencer: opinion leader, supports powerful cri c theory. Accepted by
many studios and distributors
- Predictor: indicator with no signi cant in uence; represents the audience
Do reviews have a discernible impact on box o ce receipts? Are they predictors or in uencers?
>They test this by arguing that early box o ce success is a sign of in uence, later revenue&long tail a sign of
predic on (because WoM becomes more prevalent and people rely less on cri cs). They assume causality.
Findings
- insigni cant rela onship between cri cal reviews and box o ce revenues during rst four weeks
following the review-> against in uencer perspec ve based on their framework
- Reviews tend to correlate with total cumula ve box o ce performance & legs-> supports role or
predictors-not en rely conclusive
> this has di erent marke ng implica ons - instead of targe ng opinion leaders (in uencer cri cs)
understand what they think. Don’t persuade them but use them as indicators. Introduce cri cs earlier in
the produc on process for enhancement implica ons. Also argues that quo ng cri cs isn’t that useful.
Other factors seem to overwhelm the cri c’s e ect at the aggregate level
1
titifi tifftiti ff titi tititiffitttiti ti fl fl ti tiffititi ffi
fffffltiti tiffi fifl ti
ffffiflti fl fifl ffi
flti ti fititifl fl ffi titi tifi tifi ti
Eliasberg & Shugan (1997): Film cri cs: in uencers or predictors
Paper in a nutshell
Examines the role that cri cs play in predic ng and/or in uencing the commercial box o ce performance
of mo on pictures. They inves gate aggregate in uence of cri cs on box o ce revenues. They nd that
counterintui vely, cri c reviews have sta s cally insigni cant in uence at the release but they signi cantly
correlate with late box o ce revenue.
Framework/theory
Previous research on cri c’s reviews and their e ects seems inconclusive. Suggests that the role of cri cs
can shape moviegoer’s a endance, suggests a moderate di erent impact for posi ve/nega ve reviews; the
reviews could indicate only moviegoer tastes
Powerful cri c theory: believes that reviews can make or break- hence, it makes sense to target cri cs.
Two possible e ects of cri cs: - In uencer: opinion leader, supports powerful cri c theory. Accepted by
many studios and distributors
- Predictor: indicator with no signi cant in uence; represents the audience
Do reviews have a discernible impact on box o ce receipts? Are they predictors or in uencers?
>They test this by arguing that early box o ce success is a sign of in uence, later revenue&long tail a sign of
predic on (because WoM becomes more prevalent and people rely less on cri cs). They assume causality.
Findings
- insigni cant rela onship between cri cal reviews and box o ce revenues during rst four weeks
following the review-> against in uencer perspec ve based on their framework
- Reviews tend to correlate with total cumula ve box o ce performance & legs-> supports role or
predictors-not en rely conclusive
> this has di erent marke ng implica ons - instead of targe ng opinion leaders (in uencer cri cs)
understand what they think. Don’t persuade them but use them as indicators. Introduce cri cs earlier in
the produc on process for enhancement implica ons. Also argues that quo ng cri cs isn’t that useful.
Other factors seem to overwhelm the cri c’s e ect at the aggregate level
1
titifi tifftiti ff titi tititiffitttiti ti fl fl ti tiffititi ffi
fffffltiti tiffi fifl ti
ffffiflti fl fifl ffi
flti ti fititifl fl ffi titi tifi tifi ti
