:5...

no}.

1 it .
9. r9 .

. (In ..

a 1:11
a i

n

L
a

I
a, .demW-w .

L r:
hf.— m.. ti”...
‘
.w

gammy
3.. . .w

n . ‘11 V
Y: t . 312'.

.33.. 4% 4
3. rs “é. , ,
‘ kw nan. «Gun .f .
I.Mm r. u A I . .
icurafi‘

.
. . s.

 

 

3.
Ni 13% anus
‘ .1... fix. B.
. .15. . r

 

HEP? mmmufi.) 0}.

.v.::..|10.

Y .2 u, 1!... 1
i”
Iv? V.A..,_....‘..u

w. i=1$wx¢a Q;

fi~flw$flcci€ruwwi 1-. gukfi... .Hw

ESIS

QR
oil
This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
THE HEURISTIC AND SYSTEMATIC PROCESSING OF
BRAND ATTRIBUTES AND NEUTRAL INFORMATION
SOURCES IN THE DECISION TO SEE A FILM
AT THE THEATRE
presented by
2%
>- 4-0
a: co 5‘
< C (T) WILLIAM J. WARD
£5
55 .9 2
_ S c
-‘ .2 3
E has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

 

 

DOCTOR OF degree in Mass Media Ph.D. Program
PHILOSOPHY

 

 

BAA/ML A Uriel/Low 82m 1/1

Major Professor’ s Signatured
Fix/goat” (107,21 00?

Date

 

MSU is an afiinnative-action. equal-opportunity employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DAIEDUE

DAIEDUE

DAIEDUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/CIRC/DaleDue.indd-p.1

 

THE HEURISTIC AND SYSTEMATIC PROCESSING OF
BRAND ATTRIBUTES AND NEUTRAL INFORMATION SOURCES

IN THE DECISION TO SEE A FILM AT THE THEATRE

By

William J. Ward

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Mass Media Ph.D. Program

2007

ABSTRACT
THE HEURISTIC AND SYSTEMATIC PROCESSING OF
BRAND ATTRIBUTES AND NEUTRAL INFORMATION SOURCES
IN THE DECISION TO SEE A FILM AT THE THEATRE
By
William J. Ward

Low or high motivation related to personal relevance has been an
important indicator of the likelihood that receivers will engage in elaboration or
thinking about the information contained in a persuasive effort (Petty and
Cacioppo 1986). However, the concept of systematic, in-depth cognitive analysis
and I or heuristic, superficial processing of information, have not previously been
applied to moviegoers. In this study, ten hypotheses were tested and the data
provided additional validation to involvement and “market maven” measures
(Feick and Price 1987) with the frequency of movie attendance and with the
Heuristic-Systematic Model (T odorov, Chaiken et. al. 2002) for total thoughts and
heuristic thought processing. The significance of this research is that it
incorporates involvement, heuristic and systematic processing, and motivation
constructs into theories of moviegoing behavior.

The study administered an intercept survey to moviegoers (N=373) at a
Midwest cinema and applied the Heuristic-Systematic Model to the entire
decision process to see a film at the theatre, considering all of the information a
consumer used before a decision was made. The study found both involvement

(Zaichkowsky’s 1987) and “market maven” measures (Feick and Price 1987) to

be correlated with frequency of movie attendance. The findings also supported
the role of involvement with the combined number of systematic and heuristic
thoughts and the number of heuristic thoughts. Contrary to expectations, there
was no support for the role of involvement with the number of systematic
thoughts or with the familiarity of a film, and with different levels or types of
processing related to the genre of the film. Explanations and implications for
these findings are discussed and the study concludes with suggestions for

future research.

Copyright by
WILLIAM J. WARD
2007

To my wife, Severine,
and my parents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe special thanks to my dissertation director, Bruce Vanden Bergh, for
his creative advice and contagious enthusiasm throughout my time at Michigan
State, and especially during the writing of this dissertation. My committee,
composed of Bonnie Reece, Steve Wildman, and Gary Hoppenstand provided
guidance that was greatly appreciated. Special thanks also go to Ayla
Barenfanger, Bryan Durco, Sonal Patel, Kristy Sanford and Sarah Schultz who
helped with the customer intercepts at the movie theatre and with the coding of
the surveys.

I must also thank Ron VanTimmeren, Executive Vice President of
Marketing and Film with Celebration Cinema, IMAX Theatre, and Jack Loeks
Theatres, Inc. for providing me with access to valuable motion picture industry
information, and his insights and encouragement along the way. I am also
grateful for the continuing support of family and friends who supported and
encouraged me throughout graduate school, especially my parents. I am also in

debt to my wife, Severine, who brightens my life.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................. ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
Structure of This Research ......................................................... 5
Experience Goods ..................................................................... 6
Public-Good Character of Media ................................................... 8
Toward Industry Standardization ................................................... 9
Production Budgets .................................................................. 11
Windowing .............................................................................. 12

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction ............................................................................. 1 7
Heuristic-Systematic Model of Persuasive Communication (HSM) ...... 18
The Market Maven and the Diffusion of Marketplace Information ......... 22
Brand Attributes of Film .............................................................. 26
Genre and Audience Expectations ............................................... 28
Ratings ................................................................................... 34
Pre-sold Properties - Stories, Directors and Stars ............................ 36
Neutral Information Sources - Critical Endorsement of Films ............. 39
Neutral Information Sources - Award Endorsement of Films ............... 41
Film Marketing ........................................................................... 42
Movie Marketing in the Information Age ......................................... 43
Blogs ...................................................................................... 46
Theoretical Concepts and Hypotheses .......................................... 48
Summary ................................................................................. 54

CHAPTER 3

METHODS
Introduction .......................................................... ' .................... 56
Participants and Procedures ........................................................ 56
Measures — Content Variables and Statistical Analyses ..................... 60
Summary ................................................................................. 66

vii

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS
Introduction .............................................................................. 67
Findings ................................................................................... 67
Hypotheses Testing .................................................................... 69
Summary .................................................................................. 77
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Significance of Findings ............................................................... 80
The Relationship of Involvement with Movie Mavens and Frequency.....80
The Role of Systematic and Heuristic Processing with Moviegoers ........ 82
The Relationship of Genre to Involvement and Processing .................. 84
The Role of Involvement and Processing with Familiarity ..................... 86
Limitations of Current Research ..... ‘ ................................................ 87
Suggestions for Future Research ........... . ........................................ 88
Conclusion ................................................................................. 91
APPENDICES
A: Survey instrument .................................................................... 92
B: Thought Listing Coding ............................................................ 97
C: Consent Form ........................................................................ 98
REFERENCES ..................... 99

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1
Moviegoers by Age Group Comparison ................................................. 57

Table 2
Film Titles, Genre, Rating, Release Date and Frequency of Responses ....... 59

Table 3
Mean Scores and Stand Deviations for
Independent and Dependent Variables .................................................. 69

Table 4
Pearson Correlation for Involvement, Number of Movies Seen
And Market Maven Measure ................................................................ 70

Table 5
Person Correlation for Involvement, Total Heuristic and
Systematic Thoughts, Total Systematic and Total Heuristic Thoughts ........... 72

Table 6

z-test for Differences Between Proportions for Low and High Involvement of
--Unaided Thought Listings .................................................................... 73

Table 7

z-test for Differences Between Proportions for Low and High Movie Maven
Measures of Unaided Thought Listings ................................................... 74

Table 8 .
f Selected Genre I MedianSplit Crosstabulations ........................................ 76

Table 9

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, Paired t-test and Correlation for Unaided/
Aided Recall of Stars and Directors ........................................................ 88

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

This study examines the persuasive influence of various factors on an
individual’s decision to see a specific film at the theatre. Moviegoers can form
impressions about a movie based on film characteristics (brand attributes) and
on information provided by independent (non-studio) sources. These
independent, or third-party, sources are referred to as neutral information
sources, although the content of their communications are often far from neutral
(Henning-Thurau, Walsh et al. 2001). Brand attributes include pre-sold elements
or information about a movie such as a film’s genre, star, director, and story and
are included in the advertising and public relations of a new film. Neutral sources
of information about a film include word-of-mouth, critics’ comments and awards.
Neutral information sourws can be included in third party communications and
are also often included with studio promotion of a new film (Henning-Thurau,
Walsh et al. 2001). Previous research has examined the influence of brand
attributes of films and neutral information sources at the aggregate level, but
these factors have not been used to help understand the individual decision
process to see a specific film.

The Heuristic—Systematic Model (HSM) is typically used as a way to
distinguish between the different modes of processing a persuasive

communication as well as to characterize the different features that may activate

these modes. In this study, the HSM is applied to the entire decision process,
considering all of the information a consumer used before a decision was made.
Presence or absence of personal relevance, belief strength, and motivation are
all ways to initiate systematic or heuristic processing. It is important to
understand the factors that determine exactly when consumers might engage in
systematic process and when they might be influence by heuristic cues
(MacKenzie and Spreng 1992).

Understanding how consumers decide to see a specific film is of
increasing importance with overall ticket sales for the summer 2005 film season
down 8% and attendance down 11% to the lowest levels in four years (Bowles
2005). Currently six or seven movies out of any 10 major theatrical films
produced are unprofitable at the theater. Changing consumer tastes and the
nearly two—year lead time required to produce and release a new film complicate
the needs of studios to have a continual stream of new ideas that will match
consumer demand (Litman 1998). This makes for a risky return on investment
proposition for individual participants coupled with a short life cycle and rapid
decay in revenue after a motion picture’s opening release in the theatre (Vogel
2001)

Studios are able to recoup their investment across the other home
exhibition windows to maximize and generate their profits after the first theatrical
release through options such as DVD and Video on Demand (VOD), but remain
frustrated with the inability to predict whether a specific film will be successful at

the box office. The success of the first theatrical release in 1985 accounted for

over 70% share of sales, however, films today often pull in 60-70% of their total
grosses from the home entertainment market and recoup their investment across
the other home exhibition windows after the first theatrical release (Stanley
2005). However, the success of a film at the box office remains critical to its
downstream success in the other exhibition windows (Litman 1998).

Research on how to attract people to see a particular film and the
predicted success of a film at the box office has been the goal of much
confidential proprietary industry research (Litman and Kohl 1989). The
unpredictability of what movie people decide to see combined with a decline in
attendance have studios using surveys, test screenings and public opinion polls
to re—evaluate what moviegoers want. It is not certain what is causing the decline
in attendance at movie theatres. However, there are many possible
explanations. The decline in attendance at theatres may be a result of a variety
of factors including changing movie-going habits and industry release patterns
made possible by an increasing variety of digital technology delivery, recording
and viewing options. Large screen, high definition television and digital surround
sound systems for home theaters combined with DVD home delivery, digital VOD
via cable, satellite and intemet delivery, digital recording devices such as TNo,
and portable viewing devices such as laptop computers, new video cell phones,
and Apple’s new portable Video l-Pod, combined with a shortened release
window from theatre to home now allow consumers almost complete control of

when, where, and how they choose to see a movie (Stanley 2005).

Digital technology also increases the opportunity for piracy, or the illegal
recording or downloading of a film, and makes it possible to see the film outside
of the theatre or studio release windows such as DVD or VOD. In the summer of
2002 an estimated 1 million to 3 million people illegally downloaded or viewed
Spider-Man and Star-Wars: Attack of the Clones before the films were released
to movie theatres (Levack 2002). Film industry losses to movie piracy are
estimated by the Motion Picture Association of America to be more than $2 billion
each year (MPAA 2003). Despite recent developments in encryption technology
there are still concerns about theft using digital distribution (lsailovic 2000). This
unauthorized copying or leakage between windows to piracy short-circuits the
windowing process and denies the product the full benefits of price discrimination
(Owen and Vlfildman 1992). Threats of video piracy are already causing studios
to simultaneously release big budget films domestically and internationally. This
is also being discussed as a viable strategy to reduce piracy by simultaneous
releasing a film in theatres and through downstream video release windows such
as DVD and VOD.

Frustrations with the movie-going experience in theatres such as
annoyance at noisy patrons, cell phones ringing, pre-show ads, and the cost of
movie tickets may also be factors contributing to the decline in attendance. The
lack of quality product and economic factors such as a slow economy, rising gas
prices, and competition from other entertainment options like video games and
the lntemet are also suggested as explanations for the decline (Bowles 2005;

Stanley 2005). The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), the primary

trade group for exhibitors, is pushing to address the in-theatre complaints by
proposing bans on small children after a certain hour to cut down on crying
babies, checking cell phones at the theater door or blocking cell phones inside
theaters, and policing auditoriums and asking people to leave after they’ve been
warned for being too noisy (Waxman 2005). A combination of some or all of
these factors may be contributing to the decline in attendance at the theater and
increasing the importance of determining how best to market a film to an
audience and to understand how they choose to see a specific film at the theater.

Given the risk and uncertainty of a film being successful and declining
attendance, the question raised is how do consumers decide to see a specific
film at the theatre? What factors about a specific film influence a consumer to
choose to see it at the theatre? What type of processing is used in determining
whether to see a specific film?
Structure of This Research

This research into the Heuristic and Systematic Processing of brand
attributes and neutral information sources in the decision to see a film is divided
into five chapters. The rest of the first chapter will consider the economic
characteristics of film content and its relationship to large investments in creative
and production inputs that contribute to the success of a film. The economic
characteristics of film also explain the relationship between media content and
industry practices in motion pictures. The second chapter will review the
literature on previous research on brand attributes and neutral information

sources of a film and the use of the Heuristic—Systematic Processing Model

(HSM) of low and high involvement users and the significance of the proposed
research. The role of involvement, motivations and marketplace influencers or
‘Market Mavens’ and the HSM will be used to present a series of hypotheses that
will provide a foundation for the current investigation. The third chapter will
provide the methods for the investigation. Chapter Four will present the results
of that research, which involves a study of heuristic and systematic processing of
brand attributes and neutral information sources with low and high involvement
individuals and their decision to see a particular film. The final chapter will
discuss the findings of this research both broadly and specifically in light of
previous work.
Experience Goods

Economic theory and its sub-discipline, economics of information, posit
that consumers try to assess a product’s performance before consuming it to
reduce uncertainty and avoid the risk of an unsatisfactory experience and loss of
time and money (Stigler 1961; Nelson 1970; Nelson 1981; Hirshleifer and Reiley
1992). However, the information exchange between buyer and seller is not equal
among product types (Eggertsson 1990). Search qualities of many physical
goods such as features or attributes like color, size, ingredients, etc. can be more
easily and objectively evaluated by the customer without personally consuming a
product. Entertainment products (e.g., movies, concerts, sporting events) and
services (e.g., vacation packages, hair styling, restaurant meals) are considered
to be experience goods because they have to be experienced by the consumer

before he or she is able to more objectively evaluate them (Nelson 1970; Nelson

1981; Sawhney and Eliashberg 1996). Attributes of experience goods generally
lack many of the characteristics that consumers’ can evaluate before deciding to
consume a physical product and limit market-related activities and options of
both consumers and companies (Henning-Thurau, Walsh et al. 2001). Film
consumers face uncertainty because film is also a unique “experience” product,
and moviegoers cannot know beforehand if the experience will be satisfactory
(Bakker 2001). To overcome this state of being under-informed consumers have
two options. First, they can draw on attributes that can be evaluated in advance
and that enable the consumer to infer salient attributes that replace the transfer
of an experience quality into a search quality (Henning-Thurau, Walsh et al.
2001). Second, consumers can rely on non-commercial information or word-of-
mouth from people (friends, colleagues, critics) who have already experienced
the service and pass on their assessments to them (Neelamiegham and Jain
1999). Consumers tend to place a high level of trust and credibility on
information passed on from crities and through word-of-rnouth (Westbrook 1987).
The skills and assets, or creative and production inputs, that go into a film have
to be leveraged to generate awareness and to persuade a consumer to see a
new film and reduce the uncertainty or risk of an unsatisfactory experience
(Bakker 2001). However, movie industry specialists continually fail to predict
accurate sales or market shares based on tangible product attributes of movies

and their corresponding marketing activities (Austin 1989).

Public-Good Character of Media

Media content, such as motion pictures, has a characteristic that develops
a unique relationship between content and industry practices. In the beginning,
between 1894 and 1900, motion pictures were seen as a technological novelty
by a receptive public (Bakker 2001). The early “peep” hole viewing machine, the
kinetoscope, introduced by Edison in 1894, rotated forty seconds worth of
celluloid film strips in penny arcades, halls and amusement centers (Balio 1985).
The process required relatively low upfront sunk costs to produce and relatively
low cost tickets and investment in time by the viewer to experience the film
(Litman 1998). The film product could only be viewed by one person at a time
using the viewing machine but by 1896 projector systems meant that economies
of scale could begin to be realized as multiple participants could now
simultaneously view a motion picture while production costs remained fixed
(Fulton 1960).

Media content contained in books and films are said to be a “public good”
because one person’s consumption does not reduce the quantity or utility
available to other consumers or increase the cost of production. A public
highway, national defense or national security are other examples of public
goods. The public-good characteristic of media allows movies or books to be
distributed geographically in multiple media forms over time for economic
advantage and relates to the economic theory of production and consumption of
commodities (Owen and V\fildman 1992). Once media content is produced it can

be consumed by multiple participants simultaneously with a fixed production cost.

In contrast, a “private good,” such as a candy bar, is no longer available if
consumed by someone else and production costs are related to the number of
people consuming each unit. Although media content is a public good, it also
has private good characteristics in the tangible form in which the content is
delivered such as making additional copies of a book or video cassette (Owen
and Vlfildman 1992).

Toward Industry Standardization

In the beginning, economies of sale could not yet be fully realized as
there was no standardization in the industry for filming and projection systems.
Over a half dozen different companies produced their own films and projector
systems with patent and licensing requiring operators to purchase all the different
systems or choose one incompatible projector system over another (Litman
1998). Between 1905 and 1914, storefronts were converted with projector and
screen and seating for up to a few hundred in fixed nickelodeon theatres.
Nickelodeon theatres with motion picture programs of four or five consecutive
one-reelers (shorts), emphasizing different genres (e.g., newsreels, comedy,
drama) were able to surpass live vaudevillian entertainment and build a mass
audience for movies (Merritt 1985).

The industry took steps toward standardization in 1909 with different
patent holders agreeing to a cartel arrangement, in the form of a trust, creating a
monopoly on cameras, projectors, film stock and top quality producers.
Independent producers, internal bickering by the Trust members, and an antitrust

suit in 1915 disbanding the monopoly weakened industry stability (Alllen 1976;

Anderson 1985). The rise of the longer feature film (four reels or more), deluxe
theatres, and a receptive audience resulted in a new distribution organization
replacing the trust and ensuring industry standardization needed to sustain the
emerging mass medium. Between 1914 and 1925, a handful of giant vertically
integrated firms would emerge to control the film industry in a tight oligopolistic
market structure that still exists today (Balio 1985).

In 1948 the Supreme Court issued the "Paramount" decrees which
banned block booking and unfair trade practices and ordered studios to
relinquish control of their affiliated theatres. Currently theatre circuit
reorganizations, merger mania and consolidation are seen as attempts at
controlling the marketplace for digitally distributed content. These activities have
reinstated monopolistic concerns over vertical reintegration and the unfair and
anti-competitive control of production and distribution by the leading studio
distributors (Litman 1998; Bennett and Pryor 2002; Friedman 2002). For
example, lntertainer, a pioneer in the VOD business since 1996, filed suit
September 23, 2002, in the Los Angeles US District Court, accusing the studios
and Movielink of price fixing, conspiracy, reneging on licensing agreements and
other anticompetitive attempts at controlling the digital distributed content
(Friedman 2002).

The big six studios, including Sony Corp. / MGM, Universal Pictures, 20th
Century Fox, Walt Disney Co., Warner Bros., and Paramount, account for almost
75% of films distributed (MPAA 2005). With few exceptions, independent

productions outside of the studio system must still rely on the financial support

10

from the big six to offset the risk of large production and marketing budgets and
the uncertainty of return on investment, and to guarantee distribution agreements
so their films will be seen in theatres. The independent production companies
are separate from the large studios but need to affiliate with them for production,
marketing and release in the studio controlled distribution system.

Production Budgets

The relatively low upfront sunk costs to produce a film rose dramatically as
the longer feature film replaced the shorts and nickelodeon theatres were
replaced by much larger, first class and deluxe theaters (Balio 1985; Litman
1998). Film purchasing was replaced by leasing or rental to maintain the rapid
turnover of film product necessary to generate repeat business and offset the
increased costs of developing more lengthy, high quality stories and production
values for more specialized genres (Bakker 2001). A movie made in 1909
ranged in cost between $550 and $1,100 (Allen 1980). The average cost of a
Fox feature was $23,000 in 1914 and increased to $186,000 in 1927, before
sound films became widespread. The average production cost of a Warner
Brothers film in 1922 was $90,000 and rose to $168,000 in 1927 (Hampton
1931).

The cost of new technology adoption such as sound in 1927, the cost of
film, or even inflation did not account for this rapid multiplication and increase of
production costs as the necessary costs of shooting a film remained relatively
stable (Baker 2001). A Fox sound film in 1929 cost $308,000 on average.
RKO’s costs nearly doubled from $220,000 per talking picture in 1929 to

11

$424,000 in 1939 and a Warner Brothers Film average cost was $539,000 in
1940. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which specialized in high-budget films, saw its
production costs escalate from $310,000 per picture in 1924 to $967,000 in 1939
(Hampton 1931). The main causes of the cost explosion occurred when film
producers began paying large sums for “creative inputs” (actors, directors, and
literary works) and for expensive stages, sets, scenery, and special effects
(Bakker 2000).

The average cost of producing a movie in 2003 was $63.8 million (MPAA
2005). The larger production budgets provide higher quality inputs of talent that
have been shown to be predictive of motion picture success in the past. These
inputs include such things as big name stars, better directors, better writers, and
high-tech special effects, that contribute to greater audience appeal (Vlfildman
1995). The expense of these production inputs is necessary for domestic and
international audience appeal along with the marketing expense necessary to
generate awareness and the desire to see a film at the theatre. Positive
awareness for a film at the box office is critical to its downstream success
through DVD and VOD and requires higher upfront production values to generate
awareness and return on investment (Litman 1998).

Windowing

The public-good characteristic of motion pictures allows content to be
networked or shared simultaneously by many people across multiple markets.
Once completed, the production or “first copy” costs of a motion picture are fixed

so large audiences need to be reached to achieve economies of sale by

12

spreading costs among the most viewers (Litman 1998). These viewers can be
accumulated over time and reached with repeated broadcast delivery through
sequencing of existing markets or distribution "windows" (Owen and Wildman
1992; Vogel 2001). The broad geographic reach of windowing distribution allows
for a form of price discrimination by selling the same public good to different
program services such as DVD, pay-per-view, pay TV such as cable and
satellite, and network television, at different prices. The staggering of release
windows reflects that some buyers are willing to pay more for the “utility of
experience” or the satisfaction received from viewing a film earlier in the release
sequence and that other buyers will pay less for viewing a film later in the release
sequence. The value of a movie declines with age and the strategic time lag
between each successive release window allows for a maximizing of profits in
order to reach the largest geographic area and the largest audience at the price
they are willing to pay (Owen and Wildman 1992).

The sequencing of release windows for motion pictures includes the
domestic theatrical first release, foreign theatrical release, pay per view,
worldwide home video, pay TV, foreign TV, network TV and syndication (Owen
and Vlfildman 1992). Estimated percentage of film industry sources of revenue in
2000 for the different exhibition windows included 15.2% from domestic theatrical
release, 14.2% from foreign theatrical release, 38.2% from home video, 7.8%
from pay cable, 1.5% from network TV, 3.9% from syndication, 6.9% from foreign
TV and 12.3% for made-for-TV films (Vogel 2001). Windowing release in foreign

markets is an important strategy since half of total sales of films and programs for

13

the major studios are from foreign sales including cinema releases, video rentals,
and sales to foreign broadcasters

Although declining, the success of the first theatrical release window
remains an important predictor of profitability and downstream revenue in the
other exhibition windows. The importance of targeting moviegoers and creating
awareness that contributes to the decision process to see a film at the theater is
significant. The studios are also reliant on increasingly short-tenn, intensive
marketing strategies to stimulate demand for releases that are anticipated to
have a short life cycle and limited market appeal (Sawhney and Eliashberg
1992)

The simultaneous delivery of film to consumers on the big screen at the
theatre and at home on pay TV, DVD, and the intemet is quickly becoming a
technological reality that threatens the traditional distribution model of keeping
secondary release windows separate from first release at the theater. The $34.8
million average cost that studios spend marketing a first-run movie could serve
double duty promoting simultaneous delivery to more profrtable home
entertainment options (Stanley 2005). The Independent Film Channel (IFC)
Entertainment is placing films in independent theatres while also making them
available over a new video-on-demand (VOD) service that will be carried by all
the major cable companies. Director Steven Soderbergh’s film “Bubble” opened
in intemet entrepreneur Mark Cuban’s theatre chain, Landmarke Theaters, as
well as on his high-definition network (HD Net), with the DVD available the

following Tuesday (Waxman 2006). Collapsing the theatrical and home

14

entertainment release windows is technologically feasible but is currently being
resisted by many studio heads and the National Association of Theatre Owners
(NATO). NATO represents the majority of exhibitors who fear that the
simultaneous release option would cannibalize box office revenue that still
accounts for 25-30% of studio revenues (Wang, Blackledge et al. 2005).

As digital distribution of film is fully adopted by industry and consumers,
the long term impact of VOD on the industry and the sequencing of existing
markets or distribution “windows" is uncertain (Litman 1998; Vogel 2001). As
new technologies are introduced, it is likely that the studios will continually adjust
and shrink their exhibition window sequence to maximize their present value of
profits across the many emerging technologies. The studios successfully
shortened their windowing sequence for the introduction of television, video
cassette players, pay cable, DVD and VOD and actively acquired the production
and delivery means through acquisition and vertical integration into the system
(Litman 1998).

With the traditional sequencing of release windows, there are basically
three distribution options to consider“. 1) an exclusive theatrical run followed by a
traditional release time period to other windows; 2) a shortened release run
followed by quicker release to other windows; 3) simultaneous release. These
options are based on the current assumptions that new technologies will not alter
a viewer’s willingness to pay to see the film in a theatre, other viewing options
that cost less than the price of a movie, and viewers’ willingness to view the film

in other forms after its theatrical release (Owen and Vlfildman 1992). Digital

15

media have the potential to challenge these current assumptions. It is likely that
the studios will continue to adjust their windowing sequences as needed for new
digital viewing and delivery technologies. Studios will also continue to acquire
alternative creative inputs such as video games and the Internet to vertically
integrate and adapt to ever-changing viewing patterns and entertainment options.
If decreasing ticket sales and attendance are a permanent trend during the first
theatrical release window, then understanding the decision process of
consumers to see a specific film at the theater and the processing of brand
attributes and neutral information sources is of increasing importance. The next
chapter will propose a theoretical concept and present a literature review to
develop a study to better understand the decision process and motivations of

moviegoers.

16

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

lntroductlon

This chapter will review the role of the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM)
of processing to distinguish between the different modes of processing a
persuasive communication as well as to charaCterize the different features that
may activate these modes. In this study, the HSM is applied to the entire
decision process, considering all of the information a consumer used before a
decision was made. Presence or absence of personal relevance, belief strength,
and motivation are all ways to initiate systematic or heuristic processing. It is
important to understand the factors that determine exactly when consumers
might engage in systematic processing and when they might be influenced by
heuristic cues (MacKenzie and Spreng 1992). This chapter will also explore the
previous research on brand attributes and neutral information sources of a film.
The general marketplace knowledge or expertise and influence of ‘Market
Mavens’ and the importance to film will also be examined (Feick and Price 1987).
A series of hypotheses will then serve to structure this investigation by
connecting film brand attributes and neutral information sources to Iow— and high-
involvement processing, frequency of moviegoer attendance, and the influence of
opinion leadership and early adoption of ‘market mavens.’ These will be tested

using the HSM Model of processing as part of the applied theory.

17

Film consumers face uncertainty because film is a unique “experience”
product. Moviegoers must draw on attributes of the film that can be evaluated in
advance (genre, star,director, story) or rely on non-commercial information or
word-of—mouth from people (friends, colleagues, critics, etc.) who have already
experienced the movie beforehand and can pass on their assessments to them
for the moviegoer to use in deciding to see a film (Bakker 2001; Henning-Thurau,
Walsh et al. 2001 ). The literature on the HSM Model will be reviewed before
exploring the literature on brand attributes and non-commercial information
sources and proposing the study and hypotheses.

Heuristic-Systematic Model of Persuasive Communication (HSM)

The specific imagery and information used in advertising is designed to
appeal to specific market segments (Salter 2002).. To be effective, promotional
efforts must reach their intended target audience and be favorably received by
them. The Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) is a dual model of processing that
an individual may employ when evaluating a persuasive message and that might
help researchers to understand the individual processing of brand attributes and
neutral information sources regarding the decision to see a specific film. The
HSM posits that people can engage in systematic, in-depth cognitive analysis
and/or engage in heuristic, superficial processing of information (Todorov,
Chaiken et al. 2002). The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is a similar
processing model that also considers the presence or absence of personal
relevance. Low or high motivation related to personal relevance has been found

to be an indicator of the likelihood that receivers will engage in elaboration or

18

thinking about the information contained in a persuasive effort (Petty and
Cacioppo 1986). Similar to heuristic processing, the ELM model posits that low
motivation leads to less reliance on content cues, or in-depth processing, and
more focus on peripheral cues that act as symbolic triggers creating social
influence with little processing (Petty and Cacioppo 1986).

Chaiken (1980) first defined the two modes of processing labeled
systematic processing and heuristic processing. Systematic processing takes
place when an individual exerts additional cognitive energy when processing a
message. Systematically processing a message also emphasizes a greater
detail in understanding the arguments in the message as well as the validity of
the message’s conclusion. On the other hand, heuristic processing relies on
simple cues or rules when processing a message. Individuals act as cognitive
misers if there is sufficient confidence to form judgments that require little
concentration on the details of the arguments, and the basis of the heuristic cues
or rules derive from the individual’s scripts of previous experience (Nabi 1999).
Such heuristic cues include length of message, the source of the message or
statistical data (Griffin, Neuwirth et al. 2002).

Situations that can trigger a specific processing mode could include time
pressure and distraction or the motivation of the individual (Todorov, Chaiken et
al.2002). Todorov et al. (2002) highlight one type of motivation situation in which
sufficient motivation is present, and this refers to an individual engaging in
processing due to a discrepancy between their actual confidence and desired

confidence for a judgment task. Specifically, individuals have a strong motivation

19

to process when they want accurate and sufficient information (Griffin, Neuwirth
et al. 2002). The discrepancy should lead the individual to systematically process
the message. Todorov et al. (2002) discuss how personal relevance, task
importance and a need for cognition may induce systematic processing because
such variables increase an individual’s desired confidence and this might initiate
the need to process further in order to match the actual confidence to the desired
confidence. Low confidence increases the need for systematic processing to
achieve a higher level of confidence. It is also important to note that a sufficiently
motivated individual who- has limited cognitive resources and the message is
personally relevant, will also turn to heuristic cues when reviewing a message.

This dual-process model suggests that both the systematic and heuristic
modes can occur simultaneously, but there is debate over the actual interaction
between the modes (Todorov, Chaiken et al. 2002). As outlined by Todorov et
al. (2002), the modes have been described as mutually exclusive, in competition
or in harmony with each other. The mutually exclusive perspective would
speculate that when an individual is systematically processing a message then
their heuristic mode is shut down, whereas the simultaneous perspective posits
that an individual may use both modes at the same time or as long as needed.
For example, an individual may use a heuristic cue for one argument in the
message, but then move to the systematic processing mode for a different
argument.

Booth-Butterfield, Cooke, Pearson and Lang (1994) investigated the

simultaneous processing perspective further since the HSM’s main assumption is

20

that the modes do in fact work concurrently. The goal of their research was to
determine whether individuals do use both modes in attitude judgments or rather
to indicate that individuals exclusively use one processing mode or the other. The
researchers hypothesized that individuals would use both modes of processing if
the situational conditions had not yet confirmed which mode the participants
would use as well as proposing two empirical outcomes (Booth-Butterfield,
Cooke et al. 1994). The two outcomes proposed included: (1) attitude change
should be influenced by arguments and cues and if these effects are strong then
the simultaneous processing should decrease, and (2) a significant relationship
between attitudes and argument-relevant thoughts and cue-relevant thoughts
should indicate simultaneous processing is taking place (Booth-Butterfield,
Cooke et al. 1994). Results showed that although the participants were aware of
both arguments and cues, they only used one of these variables to direct their
attention. This suggests that the participants, while aware of the variables,
selected their own processing mode that mediated persuasion. However, the
researchers found that there was no evidence to support that the individuals
were involved in simultaneous processing as systematic processing was the
mode engaged by the participants.

Griffin et al. (2002) looked at the link between the HSM and depth of
processing. The researchers tied systematic processing to more in-depth
processing leading to more permanent attitudes whereas heuristic processing is
connected to low effort and attitudes that are less stable. Further, they

speculated that systematic processing would also be related to strongly held

21

beliefs, behavioral beliefs and strength of cognitive structure; all considered
precursors to attitudes (Griffin, Neuwirth et al. 2002). On the heuristic side, they
expected such processing to be negatively related to the above variables.
Support was found for their hypotheses indicating that a higher number of strong
beliefs held by an individual sets the groundwork for the establishment of their
aflfludes. K

The HSM has not previously been applied to the individual decision to see
a film at the theatre and will be used to better understand this process. The
literature on ‘market mavens’ and the diffusion of marketplace information will
now be reviewed before proposing the hypotheses to connect this concept with
the use of the HSM.
The Market Maven and the Diffusion of Marketplace Information

The ‘psychological approach’ to researching the motion picture industry
focuses on the individual decision to see a particular film but also on audience
motivations and behavior regarding why consumers choose to see films among a
vast array of entertainment options (Litman 1998). Variables such as opinions,
needs, values, attitudes and personality traits are related to consumers’ decision
making process by researchers adopting this approach (Eliashberg, Elberse et
al. 2004).

The importance of interpersonal communication in the transmission of
marketplace information has been documented in influencing marketplace
choices (Katona and Mueller 1955; Udell 1966; Kiel and Layton 1981; Price and

Feick 1984) and in diffusing information on new products (Katz and Lazarsfeld

22

1955; Arndt 1967; Engel, Kegerreis et al. 1969; Rogers 1983). The most
important sources of information are often interpersonal (Katona and Mueller
1955; Robertson 1971; Kiel and Layton 1981; Price and Feick 1984).
Interpersonal information exchange is often widespread and affects preferences
and choices and are seen as more credible than non-personal sources (Arndt
1967; King and Summers 1967; Assael, Etgar et al. 1983).

Two types of influencers, the opinion leader and the early purchaser or
adopter, are the focus of traditional approaches to interpersonal influence (Feick
and Price 1987). Studying the interpersonal information exchanges by opinion
leaders and early adopters within product classes can result in a better
understanding of the extent and importance of interpersonal influence (Feick and
Price 1987). The existence and importance of opinion leaders who act as
information brokers between mass media sources and the opinions and choices
of the population for a variety of product classes has been documented (Katz and
Lazarsfeld 1955). The opinion leader exhibits a combination of knowledge or
expertise and influence (Midgley 1976; Robertson, Zielinski et al. 1984). Opinion
leaders are believed to be motivated to talk about a product because of their
enduring involvement in a product class and have been viewed as product class
specific (Jacoby and Hoyer 1981; Bloch and RiChins 1983).

Early purchasers or adopters also diffuse information through product-
related conversations (Midgley and Dowling 1978). Early adopters may talk
about the product for product-related reasons, to confirm their assessment of the

product, to look like a pioneer in having purchased the new product, or the

23

novelty of the new product (Arndt 1967; Engel, Kegerreis et al. 1969; Feick and
Price 1987). A group of influential early adopters has also been identified,
however, research suggests that similar to opinion leaders, early adopters are
product specific (Robertson and Myers 1969; Robertson 1971; Baumgarten
1975).

Marketplace‘involvement need not be restricted to a particular product
class or product specific situation and certain individuals may be consistently
more involved in marketplace activities (Kassarjian 1981 ). Certain people enjoy
browsing and window shopping and are more careful and concerned in making
overall purchase decisions (Thorelli, Becker et al. 1975; Thorelli and Thorelli
1977; Hirschman 1980; Raju 1980). These individuals have greater “purchasing
involvement” and tendhto know where to shop for certain items, where to get a
good price on products, and what outlets have sales (Slama and Tashchian
1985). Feick and Price (1987) proposed using this purchasing involvement and
general marketplace expertise to describe the individual marketplace influencers
or ‘Market Mavens.’ The market maven has general marketplace knowledge or
expertise and influence and tends to have information about a lot of different
products and shopping venues. They also tend to start discussions about
shopping or market-related information with other consumers and are also highly
responsive to requests for this information. The market maven concept is
distinguished from opinion leaders and early adopters who often have product-

specific knowledge and experience (Feick and Price 1987).

24

The market maven’s acquisition of market information may be due to
involvement and general interest and these individuals may feel an obligation to
be informed about the overall marketplace and not specific products (Kassarjian
1981; Slama and Tashchian 1985). The expected usefulness of information for
future interactions with coworkers, family, friends, acquaintances and the
anticipation of a future social role or passing on information to other people has
been found to be an important predictor of information seeking (Dichter 1966;
Atkin 1972; Chaffee and McLeod 1973; Richmond 1977; Levy 1978).

According to Gladwell (2000), the ‘market maven’ is one of three types of
exceptional people that are required to cause a social epidemic or trend to “tip”
through word-of-mouth and spread like wildfire. The market maven through their
knowledge and expertise has the inside scoop on. the marketplace and are active
collectors of information who pass on new information to ‘Connectors.’
‘Connectors’ are linked to many people and are able to bring many different
worlds and subgroups together through their connections to help spread the
word-of-mouth. Finally, the ‘Salesman’ has the skills to persuade us when we
are unconvinced of what we are hearing through word-of-mouth (Gladwell'2000).
It takes this small group of sociable, energetic, knowledgeable and influential
Market Mavens, Connectors, and Salesman interacting as individuals to help
create a “tipping point” where the spread of “word-of-mouth” and a very “sticky”
message that people can’t forget are able to spread like an epidemic (Gladwell

2000). The literature on the use of brand attributes of film and neutral

25

information sources will now be reviewed before proposing the hypotheses to
connect them with the use of the HSM. .
Brand Attributes of Film

The skills and assets, or creative and production inputs, that go into a film
have to be leveraged to generate awareness and to persuade a consumer to see
a new film and reduce the uncertainty or risk (Bakker 2001). To identify the
goods or services of either one seller or a group of sellers, and to differentiate
those goods or services from those of competitors, a distinguishing name and/or
symbol (such as a logo, trademark, or package design), called a brand, is used
(Aaker 1991 ). The attributes of a film act as a brand trigger of a film to identify
the unique creative inputs of the film and differentiate it from other available film
products. The industrial mass production and mass distribution that occurred
between 1880 and 1930 helped to create national branding and allowed the
national distribution of films through the delivery system of the movie theatre with
single pricing and national advertising to reach a mass audience (Tedlow 1990;
Bakker 2001).

The proprietary attributes of a branded product or film are used to
generate awareness and reassurances, familiarity and liking, and differentiation
and positioning. The brand attributes add to or subtract from the value provided
by a product or service to a firm or that firm’s customer, creating brand equity.
This equity included with the awareness and attributes include such aspects as
loyalty, perceived quality, and other positive or negative associations. Brand

attributes help create consideration and reason to buy, facilitate retrieval of

26

information and past experiences, and reduce marketing costs and create a
competitive advantage (Aaker 1991). Large investments in marketing are
required to create brand awareness of a film and to leverage the familiarity of the
upfront production investment in acquiring creative inputs such as star, director,
or a familiar story or character. Understanding how moviegoers use the
attributes of a film to create brand awareness and familiarity is critical with the
large upfront investment in film production and marketing.

According to Bakker (2001), film companies are facing increasingly shorter
product life-cycles for their films with the collapsing of time from theatre to the
home release window. This increasing pressure requires film productions to rely
more heavily on an existing brand about which consumers already have reached
a high level of awareness, such as famous plays, novels, remakes or musicals,
and the extending of a film brand beyond one product into a series of successive
products or sequels through the film title, director or star. Increasing the rate of
return on their investment in branding to compensate for the shorter life of their
products require film productions to use the stars of the films as spokespersons
for products and services placed in the film itself and through licensing of
merchandise tie-ins and cross promotions With manufacturers. The research
literature on different film brand attributes will now be reviewed to determine how

important the creative inputs are in the decision to attend a film at the theatre.

27

Genre and Audience Expectations

The studios’ trademarks once performed the function of informing
' moviegoers of product quality and potential audience appeal but have lost their
importance as abranding device for the consumers (Bakker 2001). A 1942 study
of trademarks found respondents could match the correct film studio in only 30%
of cases (Handel 1950). Trademarks were also used to provide product
differentiation by informing consumers about genres, such as a specific
production company known for acmedies or westerns (Abel 1990). An average
of 459 new films are released each year by (the studios representing a full range
of film genres and stories, so it is not likely moviegoers would be able to
associate a specific studio trademark with a quality or type of film today (MPAA
2005). Disney or Pixar studios known for animated family films may be examples
of the few recognizable genre-related studio trademarks left. However, Disney
also releases a variety of film genres in their product mix to appeal to a range of
consumers and compete with the other studios.

The loss of the studio trademark as a branding device makes
understanding genre’s relationship to the organization of a film’s story and
audience expectations a better starting point for understanding audience
expectations and familiarity with film. Genre’s earliest manifestations in literature
and evolution to its current application in film will be traced and examples of
select genres of film will be used to demonstrate its current use. Once the

relationship of genre to a film’s story and audience expectations are better

28

understood we will review how genre is used as part of a film’s branding efforts
with the current marketing and distribution of film.

Film genre is the division of movies into groups that have similar subjects
and themes (Gehring 1988). Genre is based on a French word for literary type.
lts relationship to film can be understood by reviewing its early meaning with the
literary traditions. Aristotle’s Poetics identified different kinds of literature by
breaking down poetry into types or categories such as tragedy, epic, lyric, etc.
His purpose was to classify each distinct kind of literature and describe the
qualities that identify its techniques and subjects (Cawelti 1976; Buscombe
1986). These early formulaic guidelines or patterns refer to the structure of the
narrative or dramatic conventions employed in literature. Formula is also used
as a way of understanding patterns of plot or story types that provide universal
appeal or archetypes (Cawelti 1976). Genre and formula also act as triggers for
creating brand awareness and associations by comparing past experiences to
future expectations and interests. If a moviegoer enjoyed a science fiction film in
the past he will be more familiar with the sci-ii genre, have more expectations of
a positive future experience with the genre, and have more potential interest in
seeing a new sci-fl film.

The development of film projection systems at the end of the nineteenth-
century opened up commercial filmmaking’s ability to reach large audiences or
spectators through motion pictures (Hoppenstand 1998). As with popular literary
genre, commercially successful film story formulas or genres had to be

understood and repeated to respond to the new emerging mass market of

29

cinema and popular culture (Neale 1995). Applied to film, genre has similar
abilities to encourage expectations and experiences based on the repetition and
variation of familiar stories, characters and situations. The use of genre has
established film as a cultural and economic institution, similar to publishing
(Grant 1986). Genre can be used to compare large groups of works in order to
identify common characteristics or to define and evaluate qualities of individual
works (Cawelti 1976).

In film, a set of conventions in common with certain themes, actions, and
characters operate to define the tradition of a particular genre (Tudor 1986). Film
genre then provides a formal pattern that is used to direct and discipline other
works of that genre (Buscombe 1986). Semantic definitions of genre are used to
help describe the common traits, attitudes, characters, shots, locations, etc. that
are the building blocks that provide characterizations of large numbers of films of
that particular genre. A film of a particular genre is only recognized as part of
that group if it is in fact an imitation of other films (Sobchack 1986). Spectator
expectations and desires through repeated participation in the genre film
experience are reinforced through the audience’s ritual relationship to genre film
and their continued response (Altman 1986). Audiences respond to and have
certain expectations of the genre due to repeated exposure (Tudor 1986).
Cawelti (1976) compares this ritual experience of genre to the repeated exposure
of sports. The familiar rules and patterns of the game are repeated. The

variations of the outcomes, however, continue to hold excitement similar to the

30

different individual films of a genre. In genre, the goal is not to see the same
movie over and over again, but the same form (Warshow 1970).

It is difficult to determine exactly why anindividual film becomes
successful or what elements or combination of elements the public is responding
to with the use of genre. Is the audience responding to formulaic story and
expectations, or is the response to the film’s other brand attributes of star,
director, or the special effects? If genre functions similar to a product category
for the consumer, than the individual components of a film, such as star, - »
directors, and story, become more important as attributes in the branding of a
specific film. For example, if science fiction indicates a category of film without
reference to the studio that produced it, then what distinguishes one studio .
science fiction film from another?

Two science fiction films released in summer 2005 were both heavily
promoted and predicted to be big hits. The “War of the Worlds” was a sci-fi
remake released by DreamWorks studio, starring Tom Cruise and directed by
Steven Spielberg and had an opening weekend of $64.8 million and a domestic
box office of over $234 million. “The Island,” a new sci-fl story released by
Warner Brothers starring Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson and directed
by Michael Bay had an opening weekend of $12.4 and a domestic box office of
$35.8 million (BoxOfficeMoJO 2005). The films are both from the same genre,
so is the individual film performance due to the familiarity with the individual
story, the star power of the actors or director, or the timing of the release and

other competitive film offerings? The combinations of all of these contributing

31

factors highlight the difficulty in predicting the popularity of an individual genre
film. However, the difficulty also explains the economic response to a successful
film in the market with investment in other films of the same form and basic
elements of the original being produced with some variation in hopes that people
go to see the movie (Cawelti 1976).

As audiences respond to reoccurring themes, a genre forms over a period
of time as similar forms become successful (Kaminsky 1985). In this manner,
Hollywood studios seek guaranteed acceptance through the variation of
sucCessful formulas (Grant 1986). The economic imperative of formulaic stories
is repeated in most books, magazines, television dramas and films with an
inevitable tendency toward standardization and imitation with the possibility of
large profits for popular individual versions and guaranteed minimal returns of
similar formulaic work (Cawelti 1976). The reciprocal studio-audience
relationship in genre films through repeated exposure and familiarity develops
reasonably well-defined expectations of narrative, semantic, thematic and
iconographic patterns (Schatz 1986). Genre itself is a consequence of market
research and the targeting of audiences through responding to consumer
demand through familiarity and repetition (Neale 1995). It is important to point
out that, although this process is dominated by repetition, each film in a genre
must have sufficient variation in order to differentiate itself from previous work
and generate the novelty of new experience (Neale 1995).

Genre’s appeal to a large audience is an economic imperative of

Hollywood and is reinforced through advertising to maximize the brand

32

awareness and commercial potential of a film (Maland 1988; Neale 2002). The
use of advertising that allows specific audiences to be targeted relies heavily on
the production companies’ and exhibitors’ definition of genre to establish a
predictable structure to audiences (Sandler 2002). The use of genre images and
symbols inadvertising through television ads, movie trailers, print ads, and
posters all contribute to further define and reinforce the genre (Neale 1995)

Wyatt (1994) uses the term “high concept” to explain how studies use pre-
sold elements such as books, music, plays, or star to help give audiences a
reference for the new film due to their familiarity with other sources. In this way,
high concept films act similarly to genre by using images and symbols to
communicate the narrative (Cawelti 1976). Marketing campaigns of successful
high-concept films accurately communicate their content by emphasizing the
visuals and pre-sold elements to represent the film’s narrative and fulfill the
audiences’ expectations (Wyatt 1994).

An intense publicity campaign and saturation advertising geared toward a
successful opening week performance relies on genre symbols and icons more
than ever. This process has drastically reduced the possibility of a film finding a
larger audience over the slow, lengthy release period of the past (Hall 2002)
Stars names and directors have demonstrated ability to turn out audiences and
have been also used to represent genres (Everson 1978). The actor John
Wayne ordirector John Ford’s association with Westerns or director Steven
spielberg’s association with Science Fiction, when combined with other symbolic

icons, can quickly communicate genre associations.

33

The reliance on directors, stars and sequels is a major convention of
genre and is fully understood and expected by the audiences (Tudor 1986). The
evaluation of new movie projects on their potential to reach a specific segment of
the population also results in Hollywood’s classification of films and the continued
evolution of genre (Balio 2002). As genres continue to evolve with audience
expectations, genre elements will continue to be an important part of film
marketing. Although genre may allow the audience to associate with the
familiarity of a film’s story, it is difficult to use as brand differentiation related to a
studio trademark or specific film, as genre is nonproprietary and consumers’
preferences are distributed across multiple genres (Bakker 2001). Ratings also
indicate the content of a film and will be examined next.

Ratings

The rating system introduced in 1968 was designed to alert parents to
materialin a film that they may find unsuitable for their children to see. The
current MPAA ratings are G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 and are included with
each film ad (MPAA 2005). The various ratings are used to indicate the content
of a film’s theme and the presence of language, violence, drug abuse, nudity and
sex, which in the view of the Rating Board could be unsuitable to some audience
members.

Rather than indicating a film’s suitability for children as originally
intended, audiences tend to prejudge films based on their rating (Kramer 2002).
For example, the G-rating " General Audiences-All Ages Admitted' is interpreted

by some adult and teenage moviegoers as indicating that a film is too childish to

34

see. A PG-rating stands for ”Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May
Not Be Suitable For Children. " Percentages fluctuate annually but the majority of
films receive the sterner warning of a PG-13 rating, "Parents Strongly Cautioned.
Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13. ” The top 20

— grossing films by rating in 2003 included PG-13 (55%), R (25%), PG (15%) and
G(5%) (MPAA 2005). The PG-13 rating does not prevent children from attending
without their parents and also indicates more adult themes and content to attract
a broader audience of adults and young teens.

A R-rating stands for ”Restricted, Under 17 Requires Accompanying
Parent Or Adult Guardian. " In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely
contains some adult material. The rating is also important because the rating of
the film and the audience being targeted, combined with the genre, may severely
limit the content included in the film and the advertisement. For example, a film
from the horror genre that does not receive a R-rating may lack credibility as
being scary or bloody enough with the teenage and college audiences. '
Advertisements promoting R-rated films on television shows and in magazines
that target an “under 17 teenage audience are prohibited. Visual and audio
elements such as graphic language, violence, and nudity are also prohibited from
being shown or heard in broadcast advertising by the Federal Communications
Commission. Other print and outdoor media advertising regulatory boards also
limit and regulate the content of advertising targeted towards minors.

Finally, NC-17 stands for "No One 1 7 And Under Admitted. " This rating

declares that the Rating Board believes that this is a film that most parents will

35

consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be
admitted. NC-17 does not necessarily mean obscene or pornographic. However,
most major theaters will not accept a film rated NC-17 for showing and many
newspapers and other media such as TV and radio stations will not advertise a
film rated NC-17 (MPAA 2003).

Ratings indicate the appropriateness of, a film for a particular audience but
they are also similar to genre in that ratings are nonproprietary and subject to a
variety of interpretations by the consumer. If genre and rating function similar to
a product category for the consumer, than the individual brand attributes of a film,
such as star, director, and story, become more important in the branding of a
specific film.
Pre-sold Properties - Stories, Directors and Stars

As early as 1910, stars were used to brand films and establish
connections between the audience and stars and individual films (Abel 1990).
Familiarity with a recognized actor in a film can create popularity not necessarily
dependent on the quality or genre of a film (Low 1949). Individual filmgoers may
be receptive to the appeal of popular directors and stars or personal favorites.
The accumulated brand-awareness of existing properties such as short stories,
novels, and plays is also used to create instant popularity and familiarity with the
film adaptation creating an increased competitive demand for the film rights
(Bakker 2001). These pre-sold properties such as stars, directors, Broadway
musicals, comic books, television shows, books, remakes, and sequels also have

a previous point of reference due to their familiarity and have built-in marketing

36

hooks that can be used in the advertising of new films (Wyatt 1994). The more
successful pre-sold properties have greater awareness and potential brand
recognition with the movie audience. The sequel to a successful movie is a
predictor of a new film’s potential because the audience is already familiar with
the story, stars, and director, but it is not a guarantee of success. The current
state of moviemaking includes competitive bidding for the rights to successful
novels and other pre-sold properties among multimedia conglomerates. The
rights to the film adaptation of the first Harry Potter book, for example, went for
$1 million (Anonymous 2001). Film history provides ample examples of highly
successful films based on sequels, popular novels, plays, and Broadway ‘
muslcals. The marketable properties of some films already have a certain pre-
sold identity with the public that must be communicated through advertising
through simple and striking images by the time of opening (Wyatt 1994).
Consumers are able to judge the merits of the films for themselves to
some degree based on the content of the film and information about its
production qualities. They presumably rely on other attributes of the film made
known to them either through the producers’ promotional efforts or through word
of mouth. Litman (1983) used a multiple regression model to study the impact of
production costs, critics’ ratings, story type, presences of a major distributor,
Christmas release, presence of an Academy Award nominee, and the presence
of an Academy Award winner. His data set consisted of movies released
theatrically from 1972-1978 and his dependent variable was distributor revenue.

The involvement of a major distributor, a Christmas release date, and critics’

37

ratings were the three most important predictors of cumulative market
performance.

Using individual-level data, DeSilva (1998) found that the film’s director, its
advertising, critical reviews, as well as the age and marital status of the individual
were the main predictors of film attendance in a multiple regression analysis that
explained approximately 20 percent of the variance in determinants of theatre
attendance. However, DeSilva’s analysis focused on the issue of film attendance
generally rather than specific films. That is, his operational definitions were
phrased to ask respondents “to rate how important each of these factors was to
them when they decide which movie to see”, instead of the attributes of particular
films.

A study examined the importance of 14 brand attributes and word of
mouth and critical reviews for the films “The Fellowship of the Ring” and “Harry
Potter.” The importance of special effects and being based on a book were the
two attributes that were the most significant predictors of intentions to see both
films after multiple regression analysis. The director of “The Fellowship of the
Ring” and the plot and budget of “Harry Potter” were also significant positive
predictors of attendance intentions (Williamson, LaRose et al. 2003). The large
investment in creative inputs are not guarantees at the box office. However, big
budgets can increase the likelihood of brand awareness and recognition and the
potential for success and return on investment. Moviegoers can draw on the

brand attributes of a film that can be evaluated in advance but also rely on

38

neutral information sources. The literature on neutral information sources will
now be reviewed.
Neutral Information Sources of Film - Critical Endorsement of Films

Consumers also rely on non-commercial information in addition to film
attributes, such as word-of-mouth from people (friends, colleagues, critics,) who
, (have already experienced the service and pass on their assessments to them
(Neelamiegham and Jain 1999). Critics are employed by newspapers, television
stations or other media to attend studio-arranged advanced screenings of films
and provide their opinions for the public (Litwik 1986; Cones 1992). The role of
the critics to single out a film for praise or disapproval helps audiences to
understand the interpretations of the film and to help maximize or minimize the
chance of a film being accepted. This role is legitimized by the professional
status of the critic in society and by being publicized in movie advertisements and
consulted extensively before attending movies (Travis 1990; Eliashberg and
Shugan 1997).

An early study on the relationship between the film critics and their
advisees found that younger and older women tended to seek out experts in
determining which movie to see (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955). Critics have their
greatest potential to influence box office prior to the general release of a film
before word-of—mouth can outweigh the critics’ effect (Burzynski and Bayer
1977). A study employing quasi-experimental design found that audience
opinions and appreciation of a film were affected by prior positive and negative

information from critics about the film and were altered by these priOr information

39

cues (Burzynski and Bayer 1977). In a controlled experiment, researchers found
critics’ positive or negative review direction affected film-viewing interest.
Subjects read and correctly identified negative or positive reviews before viewing
a film and their post-evaluations of the film were affected by the positive or
negative review direction of the critics (Wyatt and Badger 1984). Neutral reviews
and positive reviews were found to beconsidered significantly more interesting
than negative reviews. However, negative reviews were not seen as being any
less credible than positive reviews (Wyatt and Badger 1987). Another study
found that high information content in a review raises interest in a film more than
a positive review (Wyatt and Badger 1990).

Critics may be less prominent than other attributes such as genre, stars,
awards, etc., in motivating moviegoers to attend a movie on opening weekend
but may provide a useful forecast in estimating movie success over time. No
statistically significant relationship between critical reviews influencing early box
office revenues was found in a study of critical reviews, however positive or
negative directions of the reviews correlated well as a predictor of overall
cumulative box office and staying power of the motion picture. A critic review
was more likely to be a predictor of total box office revenues versus an influencer
or opinionleader able to make or break a motion picture opening (Eliashbergand
Shugan 1997).

Other research on movie rentals found a “u—shaped” relationship between
critics’ ratings and rental income since the worst rated movies actually have an

increase in rental activity (Wallace, Seigerman et al. 1993). The use of critics in

40

publicizing a film is an important area of study since reviews have the ability to
motivate moviegoers to attend a particular film and the potential to influence box
office success.
Academy Award Endorsement of Films

The impact of the presence of an Academy Award nominee or presence of
an Academy Award winner has also been studied. The Academy Awards
(Oscars) were introduced in 1927 with the-first ceremony held in 1929. The
award show was first televised in 1953 and has become a value judgment of
prestige and part of the American culture as a symbol of achievement and
success (Levy 1987). Oscar nominees and winners of the Oscar act as a symbol
of an award-winning worthy movie or actor/ actress and translate into an
increase in box office revenues and rental revenues (Levy 1987; Litman and Kohl
1989; Sochay 1994). In a study of the Oscar awards during the 1927-1985
period, the cash value of the Best Picture Oscar has been estimated between $5
to $30 million (Levy 1987.). A newspaper ad that includes the endorsement for
past Academy Award nominated or winning actors, actresses or directors may
indicate to the audience that the newly advertised movie is also at the “Oscar-
caliber” level and worth their time and money. A study of moviegoers found
director, story type, and Oscar Award were significantly correlated with intention
to see a movie. However, they were not found to be ranked as significant as

paid advertising and Critical reviews (DeSilva 1998).

41

Film Marketing

Films do not succeed entirely on the basis of critical acclaim, or the merits
of their component parts. Studio marketing efforts play a critical role, particularly
when it comes to generating the “buzz” that brings audiences to opening
weekends. Many films are introduced in a given year, but very few become
blockbusters. Because of this, studios often rely on short-term, intensive
marketing strategies to stimulate demand for releases that are anticipated to
have a short life cycle and limited market appeal (Sawhney and Eliashberg
1992)

Zufryden (1996) developed a new model to evaluate the market
performance of new film releases as a function of advertising that was intended
to assist this new-product planning process. The study found that the lifecycle of
films is quite short, sometimes only a few weeks (Zufryden 1996). Film diffusion
patterns were found to be characterized by a peak in box-office success at the
time of initial theatrical release, followed by a pattern of exponential decay over
time. A weakness of this study, however, is that Zufryden used a pooled
awareness model to estimate pre-launch awareness of films. Therefore, the data
are not specific to particular films. Evaluation of advertising response, word of
mouth response, and distribution response were all measured in this study.
However, specific advertising campaigns, specific film distribution decisions, and

the nature of a film’s advertising media plan were not taken into consideration.

42

Movie Marketing in the Information Age

In the past, film studios relied mainly on television commercials,

‘ newspaper advertising and publicity efforts to promote films. Since the success
of the low-budget film The flair Witch Project, however, studios have embraced
web marketing as their fourth pillar (Fattah 2001). At the aggregate level,
Website use as measured by website log file data and ticket sales were directly
related (Zufryden 2000). However, this study found that spikes in website usage
for particular films correlated with spikes in the box office figures for the same
films. Thus, whether exposure to the website caused the increase in the film’s
attendance or if film attendance inspired movie-goers to visit the website was
undetermined.

In terms of film promotion, Internet sites highlight the film’s “hook,” the
core concept that encourages film attendance and participation in other aspects
of the movie’s overall marketing program (Sharrett 2000). In a sense, Web sites
are often used as an extension of word of mouth marketing (Grover 2000). This
type of “viral marketing” is growing in popularity due to its ability to spread buzz.
Viral marketing is really just a way to use word of mouth promotion via a digital
platform, which creates the potential for instant and exponential growth in the
message’s exposure and influence (Hanson 2002). In fact, it is now seen as a
necessity for most studios when they implement their marketing plan (McCarthy
1999). In the year 2000 the average Internet marketing costs accounted for

0.7% of the average $27 million spent marketing each movie that year (Fattah

43

.2001) Fattah (2001) noted that although that figure was up 40% from 1999, it is
still a nominal cost.

1 Using the Internet for film marketing is a natural fit as Internet users are
the dream moviegoer. They tend to be loyal and have enough expendable
income to see a movie several times (Donahue 2000). Furthermore, the
‘ demographics for web usage match up nicely with the target audience for film
going. Ninety percent of America’s children and teenagers use the Internet,
which is more than any other age group (NTIA. 2002).

As stated earlier, the move to expanded Internet marketing for films began
to sweep the industry after the enormous success of Thtejlair Witch Proiect. a
low-budget independent film shot by film school students for a mere $50,000.
Despite a miniscule advertising budget, Artisan Entertainment was able to utilize
Internet marketing and promotion, resulting in great success for the film at the
box office. The Blair Witch Project grossed more than $140 million at the box
office and had one of the highest cost-to-earnings ratios in the history of cinema
(Douglas 1999).

Today, nearly every theatrical trailer and movie poster features website
addresses for the film they are promoting (Morton 2000). As a case inipoint,
consider The Lord of the Rings, produced and distributed by New Line Cinema.
Vice President of New Line’s worldwide interactive marketing and development
division, Gordon Paddison, worked with Tolkien fan sites and other content
portals to generate buzz about the film, even before production began (Ward,

2000). The studio set up the film’s website in May, 1999, even though the first

44

film in the trilogy was not released until late 2001. The first trailers were
released on the official website in April of 2000. The 90-second trailer was
downloaded by 1.7 million people in the first twenty-four hours it was available
(Ward 2000). Approximately 6.6 million downloads were recorded within the first
week, and approximately 10 million after three weeks (Donahue 2000). In I
addition, Paddison contacted 35 fan sites, sending out electronic greeting cards
hyping the preview trailer. Plus, New Line struck deals early on with E! Online
and web browser designer NeoPlanet as part of their Internet initiatives for lh_e_
Lord of the Rings (Donahue 2000). The “Middle Earth” browser NeoPlanet
created was included on DVDs for other New Line releases that could be found
on sale copies and DVD rentals (Donahue 2000). Early consumer awareness
was believed to have impacted licensing deals involving the film, extended the
life of the film in theatres, and boosted sales for the DVD and VHS versions of
the film (Ward 2000).

The types of content available on film websites varies widely throughout
the industry. Most movie websites contain “flash” graphics and hi-tech sound
effects that grab the viewer, most often keeping with the current style of movie
editing and sound effects employed in the film (Sharrett 2000). Almost every big
budget movie features an elaborate website that includes “behind the scenes”
trivia, clips from the film, and even bloopers, along with contests (Morton 2000).
Sometimes websites will also contain information about the film’s subject matter.
For example, the website for the Lord of the Rings contained downloadablel video

clips, information about the story, cast, and the production itself. It also gave

45

visitors to the site an in-depth look into the special effects used in the film, photo
galleries, downloads (besides video clips there were also screen savers and
wallpaper) and more. It was also possible to join “the ring”, an on-line community
of |_.ord of the Rings aficionados.

The Harry Potter Web site had a slightly different focus. Visitors were
encouraged to enroll in the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft, which allows access
to “Quiddich training and wand shopping” to fans. It also allows Warner Bros.
studios to increase their marketing efforts with a pinpointed'list of Harry Potter
enthusiasts. This website also focused heavily on games and trivia, but also
features an on-line community for fans. Overall, the Harry Potter website
seemed to target a much younger demographic than did the Lord of the Rings
site. Interactive websites and video clip downloads have become standard with
_ the release of a new film and one of the most recent trends in Internet usage by
movie marketers comes from the consumer’s usage of web logs (blogs).

Blogs

Web logs (blogs) are a web site form of on-line journal or report that
contains opinions, thoughts or random comments similar to what is found in a
diary, newsletter or op-ed piece (Oldenburg 2006) They are usually written by a
blog keeper and are interactive with the ability to function as a message board.
Blogs can be beneficial to movie marketers-because fans tend to spread the
marketing message with praise of certain films. In the same sense they can be
detrimental towards a film by allowing negative word of mouth to spread easily

through the Internet. The entertainment industry experiences blogs created by

46

what are called the “bloggerazzi,” and “bloggies,” which try to capture celebrity
sightings (Wagstaff 2004). Blogs can at times be essentially reviews for movies
from ordinary people with some time and a website. Feedback on particular films
can of course be negative or positive. Marketers attempt to highlight positive
blogs and get them into the mainstream, creating an “ordinary person’s” critical
review (Walker 2006). -

Advertisers are taking notice of the potential influence of blogs. “The
Movie Blog,” a Web log started for amateur movie critics by John Campea, now
receives $400 a month in advertising (Hughlett 2005). Another blog created by a
fan of “Brokeback Mountain,” Dave Cullen, collected $26,000 dollars from at least
600 people for an ad he ran in Daily Variety to create the perception that
“Brokeback Mountain” should have won the Oscar for best picture (Setoodah
2006).

Marketers are finding that the word of mouth generated by blogs can
carry more weight than traditional marketing methods with their ability to form
personal connections with readers and fans. Blogs can be a key way to reach
the powerful group of consumers called the “influencers” who are early adopters
of. new technologies and trends like the latest film release (Hughlett 2005) The
Pew Internet & American Life Project recently estimated that roughly 32 million
Americans read blogs (Walker 2006). Blogs related to new films at the theatre
have not been studiedand little is known about their actual influence on
moviegoers. The continued increase of blogs is expected to make it a growing

part of the movie marketing mix and an area also worth further study.

47

.Now that the literature on HSM, market mavens and brand attributes and
neutral information sources has been reviewed the theoretical concepts and
hypotheses will be proposed next.

Theoretical Concepts and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study is to extend research on the influence of brand
attributes and neutral information sources in the decision to see a film at the
theatre by applying the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM). Brand attributes
include pre-sold elements such as a film’s genre, star, director, and story. Non-
brand attributes include neutral sources such as word-of-mouth, critics’
comments and awards. Previous research has examined the elements or
attributes of film at the aggregate level but has not been used to help understand
the individual decision process. The HSM is typically used as a way to
distinguish between the different modes of processing a persuasive
communication as well as to characterize the different features that may activate
these modes. In this study, the HSM is applied to the entire decision process,
considering all of the information a consumer used before a decision was made.
Presence or absence of personal relevance, belief strength, and motivation are
all ways to initiate syStematic or heuristic processing. It is important to
understand the factors that determine exactly when consumers might engage in
systematic process and when they might be influence by heuristic cues
(MacKenzie and Spreng 1992).

The film industry recognizes the economic importance of movie frequency

and that some moviegoers are more motivated to attend more films than other

48

moviegoers (MPAA 2005). People who are motivated to attend more movies are
9 also likely to be more involved in spending their time pursing information related
to films and actually seeing them at the theatre. Individuals who see more
movies may be more sociable , energetic or knowledgeable among their peers
(Gladwell 2000). These people connect us with new information through word of
mouth A market maven is a person who has the inside scoop on the .
marketplace and has information on a lot of different products or prices or places
and who likes to initiate discussion with consumers and respond to requests.
They read more magazines than the rest of us, more newspapers, and even junk
mail and like to pass along the information to help others (Feick and Price 1987)
The positive word of mouth by being associated with a Market Maven regarding a
new movie can become highly contagious and create a “tipping point (Gladwell
2000).” It is expected that certain individuals who attend films also act as
‘market maven’ influencers and have general movie industry knowledge or
expertise. These individuals are defined in this study as ‘movie mavens’ who
have information about many films, where to see a film, film related marketing
knowledge, and initiate discussions about film and respond to requests about film
market information.

The HSM posits that individuals can engage in systematic, in-depth
cognitive analysis or heuristic, superficial processing based upon simple decision
rules that have been stored in memory. The HSM also posits that highly
motivated or involved people will engage in more systematic analysis while

people who are less motivated will engage in superficial processing of

49

information (Todorov, Chaiken et al. 2002). Involvement is defined as a
“person’s perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values and
interests and consumers’ relationship with products (Zaichkowsky 1985, p. 342).”
Involvement significantly affects the processing of information and serves as a
measure of motivation to process, perception of attribute difference, and product
importance (Zaichkowsky 1985; Celsi and Olson 1988). Accordingly, the
following hypotheses are proposed: A f '

H1A: The level of involvement with seeing a film at the theatre will be

positively related to the number of movies an individual has seen in a

theatre.

H1 B: Movie Maven influence is positively related to the number of movies
an individual has seen in a theatre.

H1 C: Level of involvement with seeing a film at the theatre will be
positively related to Movie Maven influence.»

Attention and comprehension processes are activated when consumers
experience something personally relevant in memory and create higher levels of
involvement (Celsi and Olson 1988). The use of critics’ endorsement and
awards may act as a systematic trigger for moviegoers based on the involvement
level of the moviegoer. Individuals will be motivated to evaluate the claims and
arguments in a review and/or evaluate the winners and nominees of Awards
based on previous knowledge and past experience. Endorsements and awards
may also act as heuristic cues when included in the advertising of a film but the
ability to evaluate the claims and arguments require past experience and
involvement and the actual reading of a review, discussion of a film, or analysis

of awards are representative of systematic processing.

50

Film consumers face uncertainty because seeing a film is an “experience”
product and moviegoers cannot know beforehand if the experience will be
satisfactory (Bakker 2001). One way to‘overcome this is to rely on non-
commercial information such as award nominations and winners and word-of-
mouth from people (friends, colleagues, critics) who have already experienced
the service and pass on their assessments to the moviegoer (Neelamiegham
and Jain 1999). Critics may be less prominent than other attributes such as
genre, stars, awards, etc. in motivating moviegoers to attend but may provide a
useful forecast in estimating movie success (Eliashberg and Shugan 1997)
Consumers tend to place a high level of trust and credibility on neutral
information sources as well as articulations of critics passed on through word-of-
mouth (Westbrook 1987).

Nominations and winners of the Oscar are also a symbol of an Academy
Award-winning movie or actor/actress. The award translates into an increase in
box office revenues and rental revenues (Levy 1987; Litman and Kohl 1989;
Sochay 1994). The use of endorsements in movie promotions may act as a
heuristic symbol. but may also be used to trigger more in-depth analysis.
Reading magazines, watching television shows or visiting websites that discuss
the results of award shows, such as the Golden Globe and Academy AWard
winners, are examples of more systematic and in-depth analysis

A newspaper ad that includes the endorsement for past Academy Award
nominated or winning actors, actresses or directors may indicate to the audience

that the newly advertised movie is also at the “Oscar-caliber" level and worth

51

. their time and money. In a study of moviegoers, director, story type, and Oscar
Award were significantly correlated with intention to see a- movie. However, they
were not found to be ranked as significant as paid advertising and critical reviews
(DeSilva 1998). Booth-Butterfield et. al (1994) showed that participants selected
their own processing mode that mediated persuasion and found that there was
no evidence to support that the individuals were involved in simultaneous
processing. Systematic processingwas found to be the mode engaged in most
by the participants. Griffin et al. (2002) found more in-depth systematic
processing leading to more permanent attitudes than heuristic processing and
they speculated that syStematic processing would also be related to strongly held
beliefs, behavioral beliefs and strength of cognitive structure. Neutral information
sources may also act as a heuristic cue in both advertising and noncommercial
communication, however, making an effort to gather information regarding a
movie implies more systematic processing.

Systematic processing takes place when an individual exerts additional
cognitive energy when processing a message. Consumers with lower levels of
involvement will focus less attention on information and less effort in processing
as they heuristically process the message (Chaiken 1980). Systematically
processing a message also emphasizes a greater detail in understanding the
arguments in the message as well as the validity of the message’s conclusion
(Chaiken 1980). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2A: The level of involvement with seeing films at the theatre will be

positively related to the number of attributes and information sources
considered before a decision was made.

52

H28: The level of involvement with seeing films at the theatre will be
positively related to the amount of systematic processing of film related
material.

H20: The level of involvement with seeing films at the theatre will be

inversely related to the amount of heuristic processing of film-related

material.

As noted previously, genre is difficult to use as brand differentiation
related to specific film as genre is nonproprietary and consumers preferences are
distributed across multiple genres (Bakker 2001). However, it is believed that I
genre is important to moviegoer and genre engages heuristic and systematic
processing in the decision to see a film. It is likely that certain genres generate
more involvement than other genres and personal relevance has been found to
be an indicator of the likelihood that receivers will engage in elaboration or
thinking about the information contained in a persuasive effort (Petty and
Cacioppo 1986). Systematically processing a message also emphasizes a
greater detail in understanding the arguments in the message as well as the
validity of the message’s conclusion (Chaiken 1980). Individuals have a strong
motivation to process when they want accurate and sufficient information (Griffin,
Neuwirth et al. 2002). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed in order
to understand genre with involvement and systematic processing

H3A: Individuals with high levels of involvement will report seeing a

different set of film genres than individuals with lower levels of

involvement.

H3B: Systematic processors will report seeing a different set of film
genres than heuristic processors. ‘ '

53

Another variable that has long been implicitly recognized as a key
ingredient of successful movies is their relationship to pre-sold brand attributes of
the story, director, and star. Preesold attributes can inform consumers of brand
attributes that can be evaluated in advance (Henning-Thurau, Walsh et al. 2001).
Movies based on these pre-sold attributes would seem to enjoy two advantages:
they bring a built-in base of fans to the theater and the pre-sold elements are
familiar to audiences who have been exposed to- publicity for it. Individuals act
as cognitive misers if there is sufficient confidence to form judgments that require
little concentration on the details of the arguments and the basis of the heuristic
cues or rules derive from the indiVidual’s scripts of previous experience (Nabi
1999). It is expected that due to their previous familiarity with the pre-sold
attribute of the story the following hypotheses are proposed:

H4A: Level of involvement is positively related to familiarity with the film.

H4B: Heuristic processors with high involvement will report a different

level of familiarity with the film than heuristic processors with low

involvement.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the role of the literature on the Heuristic-
Systematic Model (HSM) of processing to distinguish between the different
modes of processing a persuasive communication, the different features that
may activate these modes and the information a consumer uses before a
decision is made to understand the factors that determine exactly when
consumers might engage in systematic process and when they might be

influence by heuristic cues (MacKenzie and Spreng 1992). This chapter also

54

explored the previous research on brand attributes and neutral information
sources of a film. Thegeneral marketplace knowledge or expertise and influence
of ‘Market Mavens’ and the importance to film were also examined (Feick and
Price 1987)

A series of hypotheses were then proposed to investigation the connection
of film brand attributes and neutral information sources to Iow- and high-
involvement processing, frequency of moviegoer attendance, and the influence of
opinion leadership and early adoption of ‘market mavens.’ It is expected that
higher levels of movie attendance and involvement will engage different levels of
heuristic and systematic processing of brand attributes and neutral information
sources. These hypotheses will be tested using the HSM Model of processing
as part of the applied theory to test how increased involvement impacts the
frequency of attendance and the type of processing used.

The next chapter will describe the methods of the proposed study and will
{identify the relationships between the variable measures, the hypotheses testing,

and the survey questionnaire.

55

Chapter 3
METHOD

Introduction

A questionnaire regarding moviegoers’ involvement with seeing films at
the theatre, movie frequency, film selection, familiarity with the film, opinion
leadership, and reporting of systematic and heuristic processing of brand
attribute and neutral information sources was administered at a Midwest cinema
in June 2006 (Appendix A for the questionnaire).
Pilot Test

A pilot test was conducted before the main study to test the proposed
questionnaire to make sure respondents exhibited no difficulties in responding to
the questionnaire items. 24 female (68.5%) and 11 male (31.5%) undergraduate
students enrolled in advertising courses at a large Midwestern university were
asked to take the questionnaire and respondents exhibited no difficulties in
responding to the questionnaire items.
Participants and Procedures

A systematic sampling procedure was employed to select study
participants. Every seventh moviegoer entering the theatre was intercepted and
asked to complete a survey. Surveys were conducted between the 6 - 10 PM
show times on Thursday, June 22, Friday, June 23, and Saturday, June 24 and
also during the Saturday matinee show times between 1 — 4 PM on June 24. A
total of 220 female (59%) and 153 male (41%) moviegoers were interviewed.

Their ages ranged from 12 to 60 plus years. The age group of respondents was

56

12 to 17 (16.1%), 18 to 24 (19%), 25 to 39 (23.9%), 40 to 59 (32.4%), and 60
plus years (7.2%). A total of 5 respondents declined to give their age. The age
group percentages from this study are compared to the most recent 2005 US
Movie Attendance Study conducted by the MPA Worldwide Research and
Analysis in Table 1 (MPAA 2005). The 18 to 24 age group from the current
study was 19% compared to 9% for this same age group from the 2005 study.
The larger amount of 18 to 24 olds may be a result of the theatre being located
near a large college campus and the fact that the study was conducted on
Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings at the theatre. The age group of 12 to
39 year-olds accounted for 59% of total moviegoers in the 2006 study compared
to 57% of total moviegoers in the 2005 study. It is expected that the sample of
this study is representative of filmgoers across the-United States.

Table 1. Moviegoers by Age Group Comparison

 

 

 

 

Age Group of 2006 2006 2005 2005

Respondents Study Cumulative MPA Study Cumulative
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

12-17 16.1% 16.1% 20.0% 20.0%

1 8-24 19.0% 35.1 % 9.0% 29.0%

25-39 23.9% 59.0% 28.0% 57.0%

40-59 32.4% 91 .4% 32.0% 89.0%

60 + 7.2% 98.7% 11.0% 100.0%

No Answer 1.3% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 1 00% 1 00.0

Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings and the Saturday matinee were
selected to conduct the personal intercept surveys as these days and times have
the most number of moviegoers during the week according to the vice president

of film bookings for the Midwest movie theatre circuit. Friday and Saturday are

57

also when new films are released for the opening weekend with new films being
the most heavily advertised because of the industry importance placed on the
Friday through Sunday weekend box office tallies. The 18-screen, 4,000 seat
Midwest suburban multi-plex plus IMAX theatre, attracts thousands of
moviegoers during these three days according the theatre management.
- The 17 different film titles being shown at the theatre during this study
represented a variety of film ratings and genres (See Table 2). Ratings are
set by the MPAA, however there is no set industry or academic standards
for genre. Genre is complex and most films have multiple interpretations
' across multiple genres by consumers and academics (Bakker 2001). For this
reason, the film genres used in this study were provided directly from the studios’
marketing and distribution materials for each film. .

June was also a good time frame for the study because it coincided
with the beginning of summer blockbuster releases. June represents a
month within which a variety of genres are shown and is not unduly influenced by
the seasonality of genre films such as Halloween Horror films or Christmas
films. Peak periods for motion picture attendance are Christmas (November and
December), summer (May through August) and the Easter Season (March and
April) (DeSilva 1998). Films released during the Christmas Season (Litman
1983; Sochay 1994) and summer season (Litman and Kohl 1989; Goldberg
1991) were found to have larger box office revenues. Films released during

these peak periods may be advertised differently than films released during

58

Table 2. Film Titles, Genre, Rating, Release Date and Frequency of
Response Between June 22 - 24, 2006

FILM TITLE GENRE RATING RELEASE FREQ. PERCENT
1. A Prairie Home Comedy / Music PG-13 [6‘1]; 14 3.8%
Companion
2. The Break Up 9 Comedy/ Drama/Romance PG-13 6/ 2 9 2.4%
3. Cars Action /Animation / Comedy/ G 6 / 9 53 14.2%
Family / Fantasy / Sport
4. Click Comedy/ Drama / Fantasy PG-13 6 / 23 103 27.6%
5. The Da Vinci Code Drama / Mystery / Thriller PG-13 5/ 19 22 5.9%
6. The Fast/ Furious 3 Action /Crime/ Thriller PG-13 6/ 16 21 5.6%
7. GarfieldzTale 2 KittiesAnimation / Comedy/ Family PG 6 / 16 13 3.5%
8. The Lake House Drama / Fantasy / Mystery/ PG 6/ 16 26 7%
Romance ’
9. Nacho Libre Comedy/ Sport PG 6/16 38 10.2%
10. The Omen Drama / Horror/ Thriller R 6/ 6 13 3.5%
11. Over The Hedge Animation/ Comedy/Family PG I 5 / 19 8 2.1%
12. RV Adventure / Comedy/ Family PG 4 / 28 0 0%
13. Waist Deep Action/ Crime/Drama/ Thriller R 6/ 23 31 8.3%
14. XMen: Last Stand Action / Fantasy / Sci-Fi / Thriller PG-13 5 / 26 11 2.9%
15. IMAX Deep Sea SD Documentary / 3D Unrated 3 / 3 1 .3%
16. IMAX Poseidon Action / Adventure/Drama/ Thill PG-13 5/12 9 2.4%
17. IMAX Wild Safari 30 Documentary / 3D Unrated 0 0%
18. Don’ Know/ No Answer 1 .3%

 

TOTAL 373 1 00.0%

Rating System

G: " General Audiences-All Ages Admitted'

PG: ”Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children. ”
PG-13: "Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under
13. "

R: "Restricted, Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent Or Adult Guardian. "

‘59

non-peak times. The larger box office success may be explained by economic
theory and the larger audiences during the peak periods.

All motion pictures at the theatre had a chance of being selected.
The advertising strategy varies greatly for films after the opening weekend and
each of the 17 films has a unique life cycle with some films being shown in up
to two of the twenty screens. The scope of this study recognizes
this limitation but each film has a potential of being selected by the
moviegoer.

' After respondents were selected, trained researchers administered an
intercept questionnaire. Respondents filled out the thought listing and then
answered questions administered by the trained researchers related to the
moviegoers’ involvement with seeing films at the theatre, movie attendance
frequency, film selection, familiarity with the film, opinion leadership or market
maven influence, and reporting of systematic and heuristic processing of brand
attribute and neutral information sources (see Appendix A for the questionnaire).
Anonymity, privacy and confidentiality were guaranteed verbally and in writing
upon request (Appendix C). Respondents received a coupon for one free
medium size popcorn as an incentive for their participation.

Content Variables, Measures and Statistical Analyses
The main independent variables were the level of involvement with seeing
movies at the theatre and the level of opinion leadership or “market maven”
. influence. The main dependent variables were the number of movies an

individual has seen in the theatre in the past six months, the genre of the film title

60

selected, the familiarity with the film, and the reports of systematic and heuristic
processing of film-related brand attributes and neutral information sources
through thought listings. Demographic data and back up dependent variables for
systematic and heuristic processing were also compiled.

Zaichkowsky’s (1987) Revised Personal Involvement Inventory (Pll) scale
was utilized to measure the independent variable of involvement. The PM is a
10-item 7-point semantic differential scale containing bi-polar'adjective pairs
which are summed to form a unidimensional measure of product involvement.
Some scale items were reversed coded to detect if subjects gave all the same
answer and eliminate bad cases. The scale items are: important / unimportant,
irrelevant/ relevant, means a lot to me / means nothing to me, valuable/
worthless,boring / interesting, unexciting / exciting, appealing / unappealing,
mundane / fascinating, not needed / needed and involving / not involving. Since
the first publication (Zaichkowsky, 1985) of the PH, it has become one of the
more widely used self-report measures. Managerial studies have used
Zaichkowsky’s (1987) revised, 10-ltem PM to identify product enthusiasts and
give direction to marketing strategy aimed at more involved customers (Flynn
and Goldsmith 1993). The independent variable of Personal involvement was
correlated with the dependent variables of the number of movies seen in a
theatre in the past six months, the level of opinion leadership through market
maven influence, the familiarity with the film, and the quantity of thought listings
of systematic and heuristic processing of brand attributes and neutral information

sources.

61

Involvement was divided into two groups of high and low and involvement
to test the significance with the dependent variable of genre of the film selected.
Thought listing was also used to identify levels of systematic and heuristic
processing and correlations were used to test the significance with the genre of
the film being seen.

Questions regarding the number of films being seen in the past six months
and the specific film being seen that day were followed immediately by “Thought
Listings” regarding the film selection that day. Thought listing has been used as
a means of measuring central route or more in-depth systematic processing
(Petty and Cacioppo 1986; MacKenzie and Spreng 1992). Someone who is
engaging in systematic processing will be more actively thinking about the
neutral information sources or brand attributes. Consumers generating fewer
message-related thoughts areable to produce fewer cognitions and are
operating under a more heuristic mode of processing (Mitra 1995) On the other
hand, heuristic processing relies on simple cues or rules when processing a
message require little concentration on the (Nabi 1999).

Cognitions were obtained following standard procedures in which subjects
were asked to immediately write down all of the thoughts for their reason for
seeing the specific film they selected and no time constraints were imposed
(MacKenzie and Lutz 1989; Miniard, Bhatla et al. 1991). Two trained judges
coded the responses into four categories (with each thought classified as the
unit of analysis): systematic thoughts, heuristic thoughts, thoughts not specific to

the film content, and non-related thoughts (See Appendix B for coding). In

62

studies using content analysis as a methodological approach, coding reliability is
an important issue (Riffe, Lacey et al. 1998). Twenty-seven percent, or 100
respondent surveys were selected from the full sample of 373 coded surveys
and used to establish coding reliability between coders.

The appropriate size of the sample depends on may factors but it should not
be less than 50 units or 10% of the full sample, and it rarely will need to be
greater than 300 units. Larger reliability samples are only required when the full
sample is large and / or when the expected reliability level is low (Lacy and Rifte,
1996; Neuendorf, 2002). The inter-coder reliability using Scott’s Pi to correct for
chance agreement was .91 (Scott 1955).

Examples of the coding scheme are: systematic thoughts related to the
film (i.e. reading critical reviews, discussion with others and visiting websites and
downloading trailers), heuristic thoughts related to the film (i.e., “Tom Cruise is in
the movie”), thoughts not specific to the film content but related to gOing to the
movies (i.e., ”My date wanted to see the film, popcorn tastes good) and unrelated
thoughts (i.e., “My foot hurts”)

The genre of the individual film title being seen as defined by movie studio
marketing was utilized (See Table 2). Multiple genre categories are listed for
each individual film by the studios to promote the films to moviegoers through
their advertising and marketing. Individual definitions of genre are problematic
and vary in interpretation too greatly to be useful. Primary and combined genre
categories were used to resolve this in the final analysis. The use of advertising

that allows specific audiences to be targeted relies heavily on the production

63

companies’ and exhibitors’ definition of genre to establish a predictable structure
to audiences (Sandler 2002). Multiple genre-categories acts as a trigger for
creating brand awareness and associations by comparing past experiences to
future expectations and interests (Cawelti 1976). For example; the multiple
genre categories listed for “T itantic” including “Action,” “Drama,” “History,” and
“Romance,” were reinforced through advertising to maximize the brand
awareness and commercial potential of the film.

Respondents were also asked how familiar they are with the film they are
seeing today. Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 = “Very unfamiliar,” 2 = “Somewhat unfamiliar,” 3 = “Neutral,” 4 - =
“Somewhat Familiar,” and 5 = “Very Familiar.”

The variable of opinion leadership influence was measured using the six
“Market Maven” scale items adapted to moviegoing attitudes (Feick and Price
1987). This measure is used as an independent variable when compared to the
number of movies an individual has seen at the theatre and as an dependent
variable when compared to the level of involvement with seeing a film at the
theatre. Respondents were asked to rank their agreement level with the
following; I like introducing new films to my friends and family,” “I like helping
people by providing them with information about many kinds of films,” “People
ask me for information about films,” “If someone asked me about several films, I
could tell them which one to see,” “My friends think of me as a good source of
information when it comes to new films,” and “Think about a person who has

information about a variety of films and like to share this information with others.

64

This person knows about new films but does not necessarily feel he or she is an
1 expert on one particular type of film. How well would you say this description fits
you? Responses were provided on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 =
“Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Moderately disagree,” 3 = “Slightly disagree,” 4 =
“Unsure,” 5 = “Slightly agree,” 6 = “Moderately agree,” and 7 = “Strongly agree.”

Alternative dependent variables were used as questions regarding aided
systematic and heuristic measures in case the responses for the unaided thought
listing did not generate useful or expected results. To measure systematic
processing responses subjects were asked the following questions for yes or no
nominal responses regarding their activities before deciding to see the film
selected, “I read a critic’s review of today’s movie before deciding to see the film,”
“I read a magazine article or watched a television show about the film,” “I
discussed the film with a friend, colleague or family,” “I visited the website for this
film,” “I downloaded a‘ trailer for this film,” and “I visited a blog discussing this
film.”

To measure heuristic processing responses subjects were asked the
following questions for yes or no nominal responses regarding their reasons for
seeing the film selected and include “I am seeing this film because of “the star,

” the director,” “it is a sequel or prequel,” “the type (genre) of this film,” “the

n 3"

special effects,” “the print ads, television ads or movie trailer, it is based on a
previous work,” “the MPAA rating of the film (G, PG, R, NC-17),” and “It is a

winner or nominee of an award.”

65

Summary

The hypotheses presented in Chapter 2 were investigated by means of
customer intercepts at the theatre that measured moviegoers’ involvement with
seeing films at the theatre, movie frequency, film selection, familiarity with the
film, “market maven” influence, and reporting of systematic and heuristic
processing of brand attribute and neutral information sources. Prior research in
this area has not included the HSM model tested with an actual sample of

moviegoers at the time of movie selection.

66

Chapter 4
RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter reports the results of the data analysis based on the reporting
of involvement and systematic and heuristic processing of brand attribute and
neutral information sources discussed in the previous chapter. The data for
multiple item measures of involvement and market maven were analyzed using
Cronbach’s Alpha for reliability. The relationship with the number of films seen,
and the heuristic and systematic thoughts generated were analyzed using
Pearson product-moment correlations.
Findings

Zaichkowsky’s (1987) Revised Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) scale
was utilized to measure the independent variable of involvement. The PM is a
10-item 7-point semantic differential scale containing bi-polar adjective pairs
which are summed to form a unidimensional measure of product involvement.
The univariate measures for involvement range from a minimum score of 10 to
a maximum score of 70. The involvement findings from this study had a mean
of 53.33 with a standard deviation of 9.63. The involvement mean score of 53.33
may indicated that moviegoers in general are very involved.

The variable of opinion leadership influence was measured using the six
“Market Maven” scale items using a 7-point scale adapted to moviegoing attitudes
(Feick and Price 1987). The univariate measures for “Market Maven” range from

a minimum score of 6 to a maximum score of 42. The “Market Maven” findings

67

from this study had a mean of 31 .50 with a standard deviation of 7.09. The
“Market Maven” mean may indicate that moviegoers in general like to share
movie information with others.

The variable of the number of movies an individual has seen in the theatre

in the past six months range from one to forty eight with a mean of 8.92 and a
standard deviation of 7.58. In a few cases, some frequent moviegoers see as
many two to three movies at the theatre in one weekend.

The total systematic thoughts when unaided ranged from zero to two with
a mean of .088 and a standard deviation of .302. The total heuristic thoughts
when unaided ranged from zero to four with a mean of .973 and a standard
deviation of .848. Total systematic and heuristic thoughts combined when
unaided ranged from zero to five with a mean of 1.06 and a standard deviation
of .88.

When prompted by the interviewer, total systematic thoughts ranged from
zero to six with a mean of 1.57 and a standard deviation of 1.16. Total heuristic
thoughts when prompted ranged from zero to fourteen with a mean of 2.89 and
a standard deviation of 1.53. Finally, total systematic and heuristic thoughts
combined when prompted ranged from zero to sixteen with a mean of 4.47 and
a standard deviation of 2.15.

The difference between the means and standard deviations for unaided
thought listings of systematic and heuristic thoughts compared to when
moviegoers are prompted during intercepts could indicate a limitation with the

results. The reliance on self-report for the thought listing measurement may

68

produce an undesirable relationship between memory of the reported levels of
processing compared to the actual processing that occurs. The means and
standard deviations for each of the independent and dependent variables

are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for
Independent and Dependent Variables

 

M SD Range
Involvement 53.33 9.63 10 - 70
Market Maven 31.50 7.09 6 - 42
Number of Films Seen 8.92 7.58 1 - 48
Recall
Total Systematic Thoughts (Unaided) .088 .302 0 - 2
Total Heuristic Thoughts (Unaided) .973 .848 0 — 4
Total Thoughts (Unaided) 1.06 .88 0 - 5
Total Systematic (Aided) 1.57 1.16 0 - 6
Total Heuristic (Aided) 2.89 1.53 0 - 14
Total Thought (Aided) 4.47 2.15 0 - 16
Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis H1A proposed that as the level of involvement with seeing a
film at the theatre increases the number of movies an individual sees will also
increase. Scale reliability for the 10-item involvement measure was analyzed
resulting in a good Cronbach’s Alpha (0 = .87), considering .70 is the cutoff value
for being acceptable (Nunnaly 1978). Table 4 shows the Pearson product-
moment correlation between the measure of involvement and the number of films
seen at the theatre was significant at the .01 level (r = .343, p<.01). Therefore,
H1A was supported in this study.

Hypothesis H1 B proposed that as the “market maven” measure increases
the number of movies an individual sees also increases. Scale reliability for the

The 6-item market maven measure was found to be a reliable measure with an

69

.863 Crohnbach’ Alpha (0 = .83). Table 4 shows the Pearson product-moment
correlation between the movie maven measure and the number of films at the
theatre was significant at the .01 level (r = .312, p<.01). Thus, H1B was
supported in this study.

Hypothesis H1C proposed that as the level of involvement increases the
movie maven measure for opinion leadership will also increase. Table 4 shows
the Pearson product-moment correlation between involvement and the movie
maven measure and the number of films at the theatre was significant at .01 level
(r = ..521, p<.01). Therefore, H1C was also supported in this study. A factor
analysis was also run explaining 76% of the variance between the separate
constructs of movie maven and involvement at the .01 level (X2 = 117.111, df=1,
N=373).

Table 4. Pearson Correlation for Involvement, Number of Movies

Seen and Market Maven Measure

 

 

Number of Movie

Movies Seen Maven
Involvement .343 ** .521“
Number of Movies . .312 **

Seen

 

** p < .01, two-tailed N=373
Hypothesis H2A proposed that as the level of involvement with
seeing films at the theatre increases the number of attributes and information

sources considered before a decision was made will also increase.

70

Table 5 shows the Pearson product-moment correlation between the level of
involvement and the number of attributes and information sources considered
was significant at .01 level (r = .187, p<.01). Thus, H2A was supported in this
study.

Hypothesis H28 proposed that as the level of involvement with seeing
films at the theatre increases the amount of systematic processing of film related
material reported through thought listing will also increase. Table 5 shows the
Pearson product-moment correlation between involvement and reported
systematic processing through thought listing was not significant at .01 level (r =
.047, p<.01) therefore H28 was not supported.

Hypothesis H2C proposed that as the level of involvement with seeing
films at the theatre increased the amount of heuristic processing of film-related
material would decrease. Table 5 shows the Pearson product-moment
correlation between the level of involvement and the number of heuristic thoughts
was positively correlated. and significant at the .01 level (r = .213, p<.01).
Therefore, the inverse relationship proposed in H20 was not supported in this
study. There was significant and positive correlation between involvement and
heuristic processing which is supported by the literature on HSM and will be

discussed in the following chapter.

71

Table 5. Person Correlation for Involvement, Total Heuristic and
Systematic Thoughts, Total Systematic and Total Heuristic Thoughts

 

Total Systematic & Systematic Heuristic
Heuristic Thoughts Thoughts Thoughts
(Unaided) (Unaided) (Unaided)

 

Involvement .1 87** -.047** .21 3**

 

** p < .01, two-tailed N=373

Before running the analyses for the remaining hypotheses a median split
was utilized to create two subsamples of moviegoers with high and low
involvement (Neelamiegham and Jain 1999). Half of the respondents had
involvement totals ranging from 10 to 52 and were designated as low
involvement, while the other half had involvement totals ranging from 53 to 70
and were designated as high involvement. To enrich the data a z-test was run
for the differences between proportions for low and high involvement and
the thought listing reporting ,of systematic and heuristic processing. 95% of the
area under the normal curve lies between -1.96 and +1.96 for the standard
normal variate of the z-score. The probability that the z-score of -3.85 for the
difference between high and low involvement for ads is the only significant
difference for involvement among moviegoers for all of the items. Of the 46
moviegoers who reported heuristic thought procesSing of ads in the decision to
see a film at the theatre 70% were high involvement and 30% were low

involvement. Zero systematic or heuristic thought related to the film being seen

72

were reported by 27.6% of the moviegoers, 45.3%. had only one systematic or

heuristic thought, and 27% reported two or more total systematic or heuristic

thoughts. Overall, there were no significant differences between proportions for

low and high involvement moviegoers and their reporting of systematic and

heuristic thoughts.

Table 6 shows the frequency and percentages of low and high involvement

moviegoers for thought listings for systematic and heuristic thoughts and

thoughts not related to the film such as seeing the film because someone else

wanted to.

Table 6. z-test for Differences Between Proportions for Low and
High Involvement of Unaided Thought Listings

 

Low High z-score
Involvement Involvement
. Freq. (%) Freq.(%) n (%)

Systematic Thoughts
Discussing Film w/others 12 (55 %) 10 (45 %) 22 (6 %) .71
Heuristic Thoughts
Star 45 (44 %) 57 (56 %) 102 (27 %) -1.69
Type (Genre) 53 (44 %) 67 (56 %) 120 (32 %) -1.93
Ads 14 (30 %) 32 (70 %) 46 (12 %) -3.85 **
Previous work 14 (56 %) 11 (44 %) 25 ( 7 %) .85
Others 18 (40 %) 27 (60 %) 45 (12 %) -1.90
Thoughts Not Related to Film
Others 60 (50 %) 6O (50 %) 120 (32 %)

 

** p< .05, N = 373

A median split was also utilized to create two subsamples of moviegoers

with high and low movie maven measures. Half of therespondents had

73

movie maven totals ranging from 6 to 32 and were designated as low

movie mavens while the other half had movie maven measures totals
ranging from 33 to 42 and were designated as high movie mavens. Table 7
shows the frequency and percentages of the thought listings for

systematic and heuristic thoughts not related to the film and the difference
between proportions for low and high movie maven measures. There was no
significant difference between low and high movie maven measures for
(moviegoers for any of these items.

Table 7. z-test for Differences Between Proportions for Low and
High Movie Maven Measures of Unaided Thought Listings

 

Low High z-score
Involvement Involvement
Freq. (%) Freq.(%) n (%)
Systematic Thoughts
Discussing Film w/others 9 (41 %) 13 (59 %) 22 (6 %) -1.2
Heuristic Thoughts
Star 50 (49 %) 52 (51 %) 102 (27 %) - .29
Sequel / Prequel 5 (36 %) 9 (64 %) 14 ( 4 %) -1.48
Type (Genre) 57 (48 %) 63 (52 %) 120 (32 %) - .63
Ads 22 (48 %) 24 (52 %) 46 (12 %) - .38
Previous work 14 (56 %) 11 (44 %) 25 ( 7 %) .85
Others 20 (44 cyo) 25 (56 0/o) 45 (12 0/o) '1 .14
Thoughts Not Related to Film ‘
Others 67 (56 %) 53 (44 %) 120 (32 %) 1.85

 

** p< .05, N = 373

H3A proposed that individuals with high levels of involvement will report

seeing a different set of film genres than individuals with lower levels of

74

involvement. Unless otherwise stated, all further analyses with involvement as a
variable were computed using this median split (See Table 8 for Selected Genre I
MedianSplit Crosstabulations). The Chi-square analysis had a .088 level of
significance that the distribution relationship between genre and high and low
involvement is different than what would be expected by chance alone. Thus
H3A was not supported (x2 = 22.078, ems, N=373). The measure of
association for Cramer’s V had a value of .234 supported at .088. Two cases for
genre were deleted because of missing information and six genre categories had
a count less than 5 per cell which had an impact on the lack of significance of the
Chi-square tests. Genre categories could not be combined to address this
problem with the small cell counts due to the complexity of multiple genre
categories listed by the motion picture association and multiple genre
interpretations by moviegoers. The overall level of significance for involvement
and genre was not high enough that the distribution relationship between them
would be different than what would be expected by chance alone. However, the
genres of “Drama I Mystery I Thriller,” “Drama I Fantasy I Mystery] Romance”
and “Drama I Horror I Thriller" had over 72% of the moviegoers indicated as low
involvement moviegoers. The genres of “Comedy I Drama I Fantasy” had over
61% of the moviegoers indicated as high involvement and “Action I Fantasy I Sci-
Fi lThrilIer” had over 72% of the moviegoers indicated as high involvement.

75

' - Table 8. Selected Genre I MedianSplit Crosstabulations

MEDIAN SPLIT
LOW HIGH

GENRE / TITLE INVOLVE INVOLVE TOTAL
Drama / Mystery / Thriller — “The Da Vinci Code” ‘

Count ' 16 6 22

Expected Count 10.3 11.7 22

% within Genre 72.7% 27.3% 100.0%

% of Total 4.3% 1.6% 5.9%
Drama/ Fantasy/ Mystery/ Romance — “T he Lake House”

Count 16 10 26

Expected Count 12.2 13.8 26

0/0 within Genre 61.50/0 38.50/0 100.00/0

% of Total 4.3% 2.7% 7.0%
Drama / Horror / Thriller — “The Omen”

Count 8 4 12

Expected Count 5.6 6.4 12

% within Genre 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

% of Total 2.2% 1.1% 3.2%
Action / Fantasy / Sci-Fi I Thriller - “X-Men: The Last Stand”

Count 3 8 11

Expected Count 5.2 5.8 11

% within Genre 27.3% 72.7% 100.0%

% of Total .8% 2.2% 3.0%
Comedy/ Drama/ Fantasy - “Click”

Count 40 63 103

Expected Count 48.3 54.7 103

% within Genre 38.8% 61.2% 100.0%

% of Total 10.8% 17.0% 27.8%

Hypothesis H38 proposed that as the level of processing increased the
, higher level processors will report seeing a different set of film genres than the
lower level of processing. Before running the analyses for the remaining

hypotheses a three-way split was utilized to create three subsamples of

76

moviegoers. The median, mean and mode for the totalnumber of heuristic and
systematic thoughts combined from the thought listing was one. The tri-split
divided moviegoers into three groups, those with zero thoughts, those with one
thought and those with two or more thoughts. A chi-square test was run and no
significance was found so H38 was not supported (x2 = 55.836, df=30, N=373).
Possible reasons for the lack of correlation will be discussed in the following
chapter.

Hypothesis H4A proposed that as the level of involvement increased the
familiarity with the film would also increase. The Pearson product-moment
correlation between involvement and familiarity was not significant at the .01
level (r = .000, p<.01) A and H4A was not supported. Possible reasons for the
lack of correlation will be discussed in the following chapter.

Hypothesis H48 proposed that as the number of systematic and heuristic
thoughts increased the level of familiarity would also increase but no significant
correlation between reported heuristic and systematic thoughts and level of
familiarity with seeing the film was found at the .01 level (r = .080, p<.01).
Therefore H48 was not supported. Possible reasons for the lack of effect will be
discussed in the following chapter.

Summary of Results

This chapter presented the results of the research design for this
investigation. The first set of hypotheses tested the reliability of involvement
(Zaichkowsky’s 1987) and “Market Maven” measures (Feick and Price 1987) and

found both measures to be reliable measures of the constructs. Involvement

77

significantly is correlated with the processing of information and serves as a
measure of motivation to process, perception of attribute difference, and product
importance (Zaichkowsky 1985; Celsi and Olson 1988). Market Mavens are
people who are motivated to attend more movies are also likely to be more
involved in spending their time pursing information related to films and actually
seeing them at the theatre. Individuals who see more movies may be more
sociable , energetic or knoWledgeable among their peers (Gladwell 2000). These
individuals are defined in this study as ‘movie mavens’ who have information
about many films, where to see a film, film related marketing knowledge, and
initiate discussions about film and respond to requests about film market
information.

The film industry also recognizes the economic importance of movie
frequency and that some moviegoers are more motivated to attend more films
than other moviegoers (MPAA 2005). The first set of hypothesis found support
that level of involvement and movie mavens are both positively related to the
number of movies an individual sees and that the level of involvement is also is
positively related to opinion leadership.

The second set of hypotheses described the role of involvement with
systematic, in-depth cognitive analysis or heuristic, superficial processing based
upon simple decision rules that have been stored in memory. The HSM posits
that highly motivated or involved people will engage in more systematic analysis
while people who are less motivated will engage in superficial processing of

information (Todorov, Chaiken et al. 2002). There was support for the role of

78

involvement with the number of total thoughts and the number of heuristic
thoughts but there was little SUpport for the role of involvement with the number
of unaided systematic thoughts. There was support for the role of aided
systematic thoughts for involvement and discussing the movie with a friend,
colleague or family member and the downloading of a trailer. Pearson product—
moment correlation between involvement and discussing the movie with a friend,
colleague or family member when aided was significant at the .01 level (r = .140,
p<.01, N=373). Possible reasons for the lack of correlation for unaided
systematic thoughts versus aided systematic thoughts will be discussed in the
following chapter.

There was no support for the third set of hypotheses that described the
role of involvement and different levels or types of processing with the genre or
type of film. No support was found for the fourth set of hypotheses that
described the role of involvement and processing with the moviegoers familiarity
with a film. Possible reasons for the lack of correlation will be discussed in the
following chapter.

In sum, the results of this research have provided additiOnal validation to
involvement and movie mavens with the frequency of movie attendance and with
the HSM Model for total thoughts and heuristic thoughts. The following chapter

will discuss these findings in a broader context.

79

Chapter 5
Discussion
Significance of Findings

Low or high motivation related to personal relevance has been important
indicator of the likelihood that receivers will engage in elaboration or thinking
about the information contained in a persuasive effort (Petty and Cacioppo
1986). However, the concept of systematic, in-depth cognitive analysis and / or
heuristic, superficial processing of information has not been applied to
moviegoers (Todorov, Chaiken et al. 2002). The significance of this research is
that it has attempted to establish involvement and heuristic and systematic
processing constructs into theories of moviegoing behavior.

In this chapter, the assertion of involvement and systematic and heuristic
processing as it relates to moviegoers will be examined. This chapter will discuss
these issues in more detail, outline the limitations of this research, and suggest
potential avenues for future research.

The Relationship of Involvement with Movie Mavens and Frequency

The previous chapter presented the results of the research design for this
investigation. Involvement (Zaichkowsky’s 1987) and “Market Maven” measures
(Feick and Price 1987) were. both found to be reliable measures of the
constructs. Involvement is significantly associated with the processing of
information and serves as a measure of motivation to process, perception of
attribute difference, and product importance (Zaichkowsky 1985; Celsi and Olson

1988). The findings for the first set of hypotheses support and extend the

80

general research and knowledge on involvement and product importance.
Moviegoers who are more highly involved with seeing movies at the theatre see
more films than moviegoers with lower involvement.

Movie mavens are a subset of people who are more highly involved and
motivated to attend more films at the theatre and are also likely to be more
involved in spending their time pursing information related to films. Individuals
who see more movies may be more sociable, energetic or knowledgeable among
their peers (Gladwell 2000). Movie mavens have more information about many
films, more film related marketing knowledge, and like to initiate discussions
about film andrespond to others requests about film market information.

The film industry recognizes the economic importance of movie
frequency and that some moviegoers attend more films than other moviegoers
(MPAA 2005). According to the 2005 Motion Picture Association of America
Movie Attendance Study, 24% of Americans who go to the movies attend a film
at least once a month and account for 80% of all tickets sold. Those who attend
the movies 2-11 times per year are categorized as “occasional moviegoers” and
account for 34% of all tickets sold and those who attend 1 movie per year are
categorized as “infrequent moviegoers” and account for 13% of all tickets sold.
29% report that they. never go to the movies (MPAA 2005). However,
frequency of movie attendance has not been previously connected to

involvement and market maven measures.

81

The Role of Systematic and HeUristic Processing with Moviegoers

The second set of hypotheses predicted the relationship of involvement
with systematic, in-depth cognitive analysis or heuristic, superficial processing
based upoh simple decision rules that have been stored in memory. The HSM
posits that highly motivated or involved people will engage in more systematic
analysis while people who are less motivated will engage in superficial
processing of information (Todorov, Chaiken et al. 2002). There was support
for the role of involvement with the combined number of systematic and heuristic
thoughts and the number of heuristic thoughtsbut there was little support for the
role of involvement with the number of unaided systematic thoughts. When
aided with direct response questions there was support for the role of
involvement with systematic processing. One of the reasons for the lack of effect
on unaided responses to systematic processing may be that the thought listing
method is problematic and triggers more heuristic responses.

Chaiken (1980) first defined the two modes of processing labeled
systematic processing and heuristic processing. Systematic processing takes
place when an individual exerts additional cognitive energy when processing a
message. Systematically processing a message also emphasizes a greater
detail in understanding the arguments in the'message as well as the validity of
the message’s conclusion. On the other hand, heuristic processing relies on
simple cues or rules when processing a message. Individuals act as cognitive
misers if there is sufficient confidence to form judgments that require little

concentration on the details of the arguments and the basis of the heuristic cues

82

or rules derive from the individual’s scripts of previous experience (Nabi 1999). It
is likely that movie going is an activity that triggers more heuristic processing as
more highly involved moviegoers will have more previous experience with films to
trigger heuristic cues. In this study, 68% of moviegoers reported heuristic
thought listings related to the film being seen and only 8% of respondents
reported systematic thoughts related to the film being seen. Forty two percent of
moviegoers reported thoughts not specific to the film content but related to going
to the movies In general for mostly social reasons.

Situations that can trigger a specific processing mode could include time
pressure and distraction or the motivation of the individual (Todorov, Chaiken et
al. 2002). One type of situation in which sufficient motivation is present refers to
an individual engaging in processing due to a discrepancy betweentheir actual
confidence and desired confidence for a judgment task. Specifically, individuals
have a strong motivation to process when they want accurate and sufficient
information (Griffin, Neuwirth et al. 2002). The discrepancy should lead the
individual to systematically process the message. . Highly involved moviegoers
who see more films than low involvement moviegoers also have a higher level of
confidence and turn to heuristic cues when reviewing a message.

The HSM is a dual process model that proposes that systematic
and heuristic processing can occur simultaneously, but there is debate over the
actual interaction between the modes (Todorov, Chaiken et al. 2002). The
modes have been described as mutually exclusive, in competition or in harmony

with each other. The mutually exclusive perspective would speculate that when

83

an individual is systematically processing a message then their heuristic mode is
shut down, whereas the simultaneous perspective posits that an individual may
use both modes at the same time or as long as needed. For example, an
individual may use a heuristic cue for one argument in the message, but then
move to the systematic processing mode for a different argument.

The findings for the second set of hypotheses found that when individuals
reported engaging in systematic processing they also reported engaging
simultaneously with heuristic processing cues 45% of the time. The other 65% of
the time they reported systematic processing exclusively. This finding
contradicts an earlier study by Booth-Butterfield, Cooke et al, (1994) that
found that there was no evidence to support that the individuals were involved in
simultaneous processing with systematic processing, and continues the debate
about the actual interaction between the two modes of processing.

The Relationship of Genre to Involvement and Processing

There was no support for the third set of hypotheses that described the
role of involvement and different levels or types of processing with the genre or
type of film. It was expected that more highly involved moviegoers would enjoy
different types of movies such as drama more than low involvement moviegoers
and people who processed more systematically or heuristically would prefer
different types of films such as science fiction. Advertising allows specific
audiences to be targeted by relying heavily on the production companies’ and
exhibitors’ definition of genre to establish a predictable structure to audiences

(Sandler 2002). The use of genre images and symbols in advertising through

84

television ads, movie trailers, print ads, and posters all contribute to further define
and reinforce the genre and communicate the narrative (Neale 1995; Cawelti
1976). The evaluation of new movie projects on their potential to reach a
specific segment of the population also results in Hollywood’s classification of
films and the continued evolution of genre (Balio 2002). However, the overall
level of significance for genre and involvement was not high enough that the
distribution relationship between genre and high and low involvement would be
different than what would be expected by chance alone. Two cases for genre
were deleted because of missing information and six genre categories had a
count less than 5 per cell. A cell size less than 5 is too small'for the Chi-square
test of significance and genre categories could not be combined to address this
problem.

Further examination of the genres of “Drama,” “Mystery,” “Thriller,”
“Horror” and “Romance“ showed that over 60% of the moviegoers were indicated
as low involvement moviegoers. The genre of “Comedy’ and “Fantasy” had over
60% of the moviegoers indicated as high involvement. These findings on genre
have to be interpreted with caution as they are confounded by the release dates
of the film. The comedy film was opening the weekend of the study and the
dramatic films had been in the theatre from seven to over thirty days. These
results may have more to do with “early adoption” than any indications of a
preference for a specific genre. The findings on genre seem to support Bakker’s

(2001) assertation that although genre may allow the audience to associate with

85

the familiarity of a film’s story consumers’ preferences are distributed across
multiple genres.
The Role of Involvement and Processing with Familiarity

There was no support for the fourth set of hypotheses that described the
role of involvement and processing with the moviegoers familiarity with a film.
Familiarity was propOsed to be an important measure because one type of
situation in which sufficient motivation is present refers to an individual engaging
in processing due to a discrepancy between their actual confidence and desired
confidence for a judgment task. Individuals have a strong motivation to process
when they want accurate and sufficient information (Griffin, Neuwirth et al. 2002).
It was expected that moviegoers with low involvement who see fewer films would
be motivated to systematically process information to become more familiar with
a film. The HSM posits that highly motivated or involved people will engage in
more systematic analysis while people who are less motivated will engage in
superficial processing of information (Todorov, Chaiken et al. 2002). ”Chaiken
(1980) first defined the two modes of prOcessing labeled systematic processing
and heuristic processing. Systematic processing takes place when an individual
exerts additional cognitive energy when processing a message. It appears that
moviegoers’ level of familiarity with seeing a film does not impact their level of
involvement or cognitive processing to see a film. Seeing a film that one is not
familiar with does not appear to be sufficient motivation to trigger a specific type
of cognitive processing and it appears that little risk is associated with seeing a

film that one is not familiar with.

86

In sum, the results of this research have provided additional validation to
involvement and movie mavens with the frequency of movie attendance and with
the HSM Model for heuristic and systematic processing.

Limitations of Current Research

This research has several limitations that may have an undesired
impact on the empirical and theoretical findings. Although the demographics of
~ the random sample of moviegoers can be generalized to the general population it
is possible that moviegoers from different regions of the country have different
levels of involvement and different types of processing. Intercepts of moviegoers
at the theatre at the time of their movie selection may help to eliminate issues of ,
intention and recency but- the reliance on self-report for the measurement of
systematic and heuristic processing forces the individual to recount his / her
cognitive processing before deciding to see a film instead of their actual
processing. This could produce an undesirable relationship between memory of
the reported levels of processing and actual processing. For example, in post
hoc analysis of a paired t-test of the difference of'means a significant difference
of moderate strength was found in the unaided versus aided response for stars
and directors at the .01 level asshown in Table 9.

In addition, when aided with direct response questions there was higher
support for the role of involvement with cognitive processing. Post hoc analysis
found support for the role of aided systematic thoughts for involvement and
discussing the movie with a friend, colleague or family member at the .01 level (r

= .140, p<.01, N=373).

87

Table 9. Mean Scores, Stand Deviations, Paired t-test and Correlation
for Unaided I Aided Recall of Stars and Directors

 

 

M SD t Correlation
Recall
Star (Unaided) 0.27 0.45
Star (Aided) 0.48 0.50 -8.83 .539
Director (Unaided) 0.01 0.12
Director (Aided) 0.11 0.63 -3.46 .534

p < .01, two-tailed N=373

One of the reasons for the lower level of effect on unaided responses
compared to aided responses regarding processing may be that the thought
listing method is problematic. Moviegoers on their way into the theatre may be in
a hurry and not take the time to fully explore their thoughts related to their
decision to see a specific film. i

As mentioned earlier, one final limitation of this research was a result of
the attempt to use a self-reported recall of thought listings related to the HSM
model. Although advertisements, media, word-of-mouth, etc. and other multiple
heuristic and systematic triggers related to a specific film were possible, the
results of cognitive listings with this study are based on self-report rather than
thought listing reactions after viewing a specific advertisement or cognitive cue
manipulation.
Suggestions for Future Research

Thought listing has been used as a means of measuring central route or
more in-depth systematic processing (Petty and Cacioppo 1986; MacKenzie and

Preng 1992). The self-reported thought listings related to the decision to see a

88

h

film at the theatre in this study generated some interesting results that supported
general theory about involvement and processing with moviegoers and
attendance. The Motion Picture Industry would be well served to better
understand the involvement and motivations of frequent moviegoers and

identify their motivations for attending a specific film. Thought listing is a useful
way to measure what people perceive to have been their thoughts while viewing
advertisements but previous research has been limited based on general student
populations, poor quality mock-up ad manipulations in experimental settings, and
intention as a predictor of actual behavior. The combination of testing
moviegoers response to professional quality movie communications and
measuring their reaction after viewing these ads by tracking their actual
attendance at the theatre would be a needed next step.

' The movie maven concept is distinguished from opinion leaders and early
adopters who often have product-specific knowledge and experience (Feick and
Price 1987). The Diffusion of Innovation theory is used to explain how a new idea
is first introduced to societies and individuals (Rogers 1983). Two types of
influencers, the opinion leader and the early purchaser or adopter, are the focus
of traditional approaches to interpersonal influence (Feick and Price 1987).

. Studying the movie maven measures against interpersonal information ‘
exchanges by opinion leaders and early adopters would provide a better
understanding related to moviegoers. Understanding how movie mavens
exchange information with others and how quickly they see new films would be

important in better understanding and tracking the extent and the importance of

89

movie maven influence. The importance of word-of-mouth to the movie industry
and the impact of the movie maven on the marketplace is an area worthy further
study.

As reported earlier, only 8% of respondents reported any unaided ,
syStematic processing of film related material in the thought listing. When aided,
systematic processing mentions increased to 83%, however, many of the
individual items related to newer technologies such as websites, blogs, and
download internet sites were still quite low. Only 3.8% of respondents reported
visiting a blog, only 4.6% had reported downloading a movie trailer and only
8.3% had visited the web. Websites, downloads and blogs are now seen as a
necessity for most studios when they implement their marketingplan (McCarthy
1999). However, with the low reported use of new technologies in the decision to
see a film at the theatre this area needs further exploration to determine if only
certain films benefit from this type of marketing. Twenty two percent had read a
critics review, 28% had discussed the movie with someone else and 47% had
read a magazine or watched a television show about the film. Finally, filmgoing
is a social activity that is demonstrated by the fact that 42% of the respondents
reported no systematic or heuristic thoughts related to the specific film they were
seeing but reported thoughts related to going to the movies. Most of these
respondents reported that they only Were seeing the film because they were
accompanying someone else. Social influence related to attendance is clearly
an important area and needs further study to fully explain movie attendance

(Austin, 1989).

90

Conclusion

In sum, the results of this research have provided additional validation to
involvement and market maven measures and with the HSM Model for cognitive
processing. The significance of this research is that it has attempted to establish
involvement and heuristic and systematic processing constructs into theories of

moviegoing behavior and the identification of movie maven influencers.

91

Appendix A

CODING SHEET FOR FILM GOING

Welcome. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. We are
conducting a study of moviegoers. Your answers will be kept completely
confidential and anonymous.

Your participation is voluntary. If you are willing to take five minutes to answer a
few questions you’ll receive a coupon for a free medium popcorn. We are not
selling anything.

Involvement

The purpose of these questions is to measure a person’s involvement or interest
in seeing movies at the theatre. To take this measure we need you to judge
seeing movies at the theatre against a series of descriptive scales according to
how YOU perceive seeing movies at the theatre. Below is a set of word pairs.
Please mark an ‘X’ in space closest to the word that best reflects your feelings
about seeing movies at the theatre.

SEEING MOVIES AT THE THEATRE IN GENERAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Important : : : : : : Unimportant
b. Boring : : : : : : Interesting
c. Irrelevant : : : : : : Relevant
d. Unexciting : : : : : : Exciting
e. Appealing : : : : : : Unappealing
f. Mundane : : : : : : Fascinating
g. Worthless : : : : : : Valuable
h. Not needed : : : : : : Needed
i. Involving : : : : : : Not
Involving

j Means a lot : : : : : : Means

to me nothing

' to me

92

Number of Movies Seen
In the past six months, how many movies have you seen in a theatre, including
this one? -

What film are you seeing today?

 

Thought Listing

We would like to know your reasons for deciding to see this particular film. In the
space provided below, please list what it is about this film that made you decide
to see it. Please write down any thoughts, no matter how simple, complex,
relevant, or irrelevant they may seem to you. There are no right and wrong
answers. Do not worry about grammar, spelling or punctuation, but please write
legibly. Remember, list all thoughts that concerned you in choosing this film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93

How familiar are you with the film you are seeing today? Please circle one.

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very
Unfamiliar Unfamiliar " Familiar Familiar
1 ' 2 3 4 . 5

Please circle the appropriate answer to each question that best reflects
your feelings.

I like introduCing new films to my friends and family.

Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I like helping people by providing them with information about many kinds of films.

Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

People ask me for information about films.

Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 ' 5 6 7

If someone asked me about several films, I could tell them which one to see.

Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 ‘ 6 7

My friends think of me as a good source of information when it comes to new films.

Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Think about a person who has information about a variety of films and likes to
share this information with others. This person knows about new films but does
not necessarily feel he or she is an expert on one particular type of film. How
well would you say this description fits you?

Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

94

Before Deciding to see this film today — Please circle one

I read a critic’s review of today’s movie before deciding to see the film. Yes I No
I am seeing this film because of the star. Yes I No V

I am seeing this film because of the director. Yes I No

I read a magazine article or watched a television show about the film. Yes I No
I am seeing this film because it is a sequel or prequel. Yes] No

I visited a blog discussing this film. Yes I No

I am seeing this film because of the type (genre) of this film. Yes I No

I am seeing this film because of the special effects. Yes] No

I am seeing this film because of the print ads, television ads or movie trailer.
Yes I No

I discussed the film with a friend, colleague or family. Yes I No

I am seeing this film because of the MPAA rating of the film (G, PG, R, NC—17)
Yes I No

I am seeing this film because it is a winner or nominee of an award. Yes I No
I visited the website for this film. Yes I No

I am seeing this film because it is based on a previous work (book, play, video
game, etc. . . Yes I No

I downloaded a trailer for this film. Yes I No

95

JUST A FEW MORE QUESTIONS TO GO

How did you find out what movie was playing today and the time it was playing?
(DO NOT READ LIST / MULTIPLE REPSONSES ACCEPTED)

a) Newspaper (IF NEWSPAPER INDICATED GO TO QUESTION 3)

b) Telephone Number c) Inside Marquee

d) Website e) Friend / Family Member

f) Other (specify)

 

What newspaper did you find the listing in?

 

What factors determine which theatre you go to? Please rank the factors in order of
importance 1 being Not at All Important. 5 being Most Important (SHOW PRINTED
LIST TO RESPONDENTS)

Not Somewhat Very
Important Important Neither Important Important
. Geographic Location 1 2 3 4 5
Showing Times 1 2 3 4 5
Prices 1 2 3 4 5
Selection of Movie Showing 1 2 3 4 5
Appearance of Theatre 1 2 3 4 5
Type of Seating (Stadium, traditional) 1 2 3 4 5
Other (specify) 1 2 3 4 5

 

Just a few questions to help us classify your responses. Please circle one.
1.) Are you... 1) Female 2) Male

2.) What is your marital status? 1) Single 2) Married

3.) How many children under the age of 18 live in your household?
a) 0 b)l c)2 d)3 e)4 f)50rmore g) noanswer

4.) What is your year of birth? 19
5.) What is your zip code INITIALS:

96

Appendix B

Coding Sheet — Thought Listing Report for Seeing a Specific Film

Survey Number

Remrts of Systematic Thought / Processing (place a mark by each category & then total at the end)

NOTE: Thoughts mentioning ANY words regarding in-depth processing or analysis are relevant

Thoughts referencing reading a critic’s review of a film
Thoughts referencing reading a magazine article about the film
Thoughts referencing watching a television show about the film

Thoughts referencing discussing the film with a friend, colleague or family

Thoughts referencing visiting the website for the film
Thoughts referencing downloading a trailer for the film
Thoughts referencing visiting a blog discussing the film
Others (please write in)

 

 

TOTAL:

Remrts of Heuristic Thought / Processng

NOTE: Thoughts mentioning these words in general without in-depth processing or analysis is considered

a heuristic thought.

Thoughts referencing the star

Thoughts referencing the director

Thoughts referencing a sequel or prequel

Thoughts referencing the type (genre)

Thoughts referencing the special effects

Thoughts referencing the print ads, television ads or movie trailer
Thoughts referencing a previous work (book, play, video game, etc.)
Thoughts referencing the MPAA rating of the film (G, PG, R, NC- 17)
Thoughts referencing a winner or nominee of an award

Others (please write in)

lllllllll

 

 

TOTAL:

Thoughts Not Spe_cific to the Film Content
Thoughts referencing the show time

Thoughts referencing the theatre location
Thoughts referencing the sound or projection
Thoughts referencing the seating

Thoughts referencing the popcorn or refreshments
Others (please write in)

 

 

TOTAL:

Nonrelated Thogghts Others (please write in)

 

 

TOTAL:

TOTAL NUMBER OF THOUGHTS

97

l l

Appendix C - Consent Form
CONSENT FORM

This is a research survey of Moviegoers to find out how people like you decide to
see a particular film. Your participation in this research is very important and
much appreciated. Ihe benefit of this study is to extend research on the
decision process to see a film at the theatre. You should be able to complete the
survey within 5 minutes. Before starting the study, please read the following
statement.

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to
participate at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or end
your participation at any time, and you may refuse to answer any particular
question within the survey.

All information that you provide will be held in strict confidence. The information
that you provide will be tabulated so that it cannot be attributed to you in any
report of the research’ 5 findings. Only the researchers involved in this study will
have access to the raw information. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

If you would like to receive a copy of the study's general results, please provide
your name and e-mail address at the end of this questionnaire. Please be
assured that your name and contact information will be separated from all other
information provided and placed in a separate file, so none of your opinions and
information can be attributed to you.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this study, please contact Bill
Ward, the student researcher on this project, at Michigan State University, 616-
915-8138, war®©msuedu or Dr. Bruce Vanden Bergh, Department of
Advertising, 309 Communication Arts Building, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, 48824, 517-355-2314.

Further, if you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
participant in this study, you may contact (anonymously if you wish) Peter
Vasilenko, director, Human Research Protection Program, by phone (517-355-
2180), fax (517-432-4503), e-mail (irb@msu.edu), or regular mail (202 Olds Hall,
East Lansing, MI 48824.

98

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1991). ManatflngJBrand Eguity- Captilizing On The Value Of A
Brand Name. New York, The Free Press - A division of Simon & Schuster Inc.

Abel, R. (1990). Red Rooster Scare. The Transformation of Cinema, 1907 -
1915.E. Bowser. New York: 14-19, 93.

Allen, R. G. (1980). Vaudevelle and Film, 1895 - 1915. New York.

Alllen, J. T. (1976). The Decay of the Motion Picture Patents Company. 1112
American Film Industry. T. Balio. Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin Press:
Chapter 6.

Altman, R. (1986). A Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre. Film Genre
Reader. B. K. Grant. Austin, TX, University of Texas Press. I: 26-40.

Anderson, R. (1985). The Motion Picture Patents Company: A Reevaluation.
The American Film lndusthr. T. Balio. Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin:
Chapter 6.

Anonymous (2001). Harry Potter and the art of packaging. Rolling Stone. 883:
155.

Arndt, J. (1967). "Role of Product Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a
New Product." Journal of Mgrketirrq Research 4(3): 291 -295.

Assael, H., M. Etgar, et al. (1983). Dimensions of Evaluating and Utilizing
Alternative Information Sources, New York University.

AssociatedPress. (2004). "Sony Close to Acquring MGM in $3 Billion Deal."
Forbes Retrieved 09/14, 2004, from
httn://www.forbes.com/fee4ds/ap/2004/09/1 4/apt 543043.html.

 

Atkin, C. (1972). "Anticipated Communication and Mass Media Information
Seeking." Public Opinion Quarterly 36(Summer): 188-199.

Austin, B. A. (1989). Immediate Seating: A Look at Movie Audiences. Belmont,
CA, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

99

 

Bakker, G. (2000). America's Master: Decline and Fall of the European Film
Industry in the United States, 1907-1920. Across the Atlantic. L. Passerini.
Brussesl: 213-240.

Bakker, G. (2001). "Stars and stories: How films became branded products."
Enterprise & Society 2(3): 461 -481.

Balio, T. (1985). The American Film Industry, revised edition. Madison, WI,
University of Wisconsin Press.

Balio, T. (2002). Hollywood Production Trends in the Era of Globalisation, 1990-
99. Genre and Contemporary Hollywood. 8. Neale. London, British Film Institute:
165-185.

Baumgarten, S. A. (1975). "The Innovative Communicator in the Diffusion
Process." Journal of Marketing Research 12(February): 12-18.

Bennett, R. and P. Pryor (2002). All's not calm on video-on-demand front.
Hollywood Remrter. 375: 81.

Bloch, P. H. and M. L. Richins (1983). "A Theoretical Model for the Study of
Product Importance Perceptions." Journal of Marketinq_47(Summer): 69-81.

Booth-Butterfield, S., P. Cooke, et al. (1994). "Simultaneous versus exclusive
processing of persuasive arguments and cues." Communication Quarterly 42:
21 -37.

Bowles, S. (2005). Hollywood frests over fickle fans - Summer's a letdown
(except for those penguins), so what's the solution? USA TODAY. National: 1-2.

BoxOfficeMoJO. (2005). "Box Office Mojo." Retrieved December 1, 2005, 2005,
from www.boxofficemoio.com.

Burzynski, M. H. and J. B. Bayer (1977). "The Effect of Positive and Negative
Prior Information on Motion Picture Appreciation." Journal of Social Psychology
101: 215-218.

v

100

 

Buscombe, E. (1986). The Idea of Genre in the American Cinema. Film Genre
Reader. B. K. Grant. Austin, TX, University of Texas Press: 11-25.

Cawelti, J. G. (1976). Adventure, mystery, and romance. Chicago, The University
of Chicago.

Celsi, R. and J. C. Olson (1988). "The Role of Involvement in Attention and
Comprehension Processes." Journal of Consumer Research 15(September):
210-224. ~

Chaffee, S. H. and McLeod (1973). " Individual vs. Social Preditors of Information
Seeking." Journalism Quarterly 50(Summer): 237-246.

Chaiken, S. (1980). "Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the
use of source versus message cues in persuasion." Journal of Personality and
Social vacholoov 35: 752-766.

Cones, J. W. (1992). Film Finance and Distribution: flictionarv of Terms.
Hollywood, CA, Silman-James Press.

DeSilva, I. (1998). Consumer Selection of Motion Pictures. The Motion Pictgg
Mega-Industry. B. R. Litman. Needham Heights, MA, Allyn & Bacon: 144-171.

Dichter, E. (1966). "How Word-of-Mouth Advertising Works." Harvard Busines_s
Review 44(November-December): 147-166.

Donahue, A. (2000). Heat seekers. Variety: 14-16.
Douglas, C. (1999). "Indie heaven." Canadian BuSiness 72: 120.

Eggertsson, T. (1990). Economic Behavior ang Institutions. Cambridge,
Cambridge Univerity Press.

101

Eliashberg, J., A. Elberse, et al. (2004). The Motion Picture Industry: Critical
Issues In Practice, Current Research & New Research Directions, The Wharton
School: 1-53.

Eliashberg, J. and S. M. Shugan (1997). "Film critics: lnfluencers or predictors?"
. Journal of Marketing 61(2): 68.

Engel, J. F., R. J. Kegerreis, et al. (1969). "Word-of-Mouth Communications by
the Innovator." Journal of marketing33(July): 15-19.

Everson, W. K. (1978). American Silent Film. New York, NY, Da Capo Press.

Fattah, H. (2001). "Hollywood, the Internet, & kids." AmericaLDemmrapms
23(5): 50.

Feick, L. F. and L. L. Price (1987). "The Market Maven: A Diffuser of
Marketplace Information." Journal of Marketinng (January): 83-97.

Flynn, L. R. and R. E. Goldsmith (1993). "Application of the Personal Involvement
Inventory in Marketing." vachologv & Marketing10(4): 357-366.

Friedman, W. (2002). The Broad Screen. Advertising Ag_e_. 73: 13-14.

Fulton, A. R. (1960). Motion Pictures: The Development of an Art frgm Silent
Film to the Age of Television. Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press.

Gehring, W. D. (1988). Introduction. Handbook of American Film Genres. W. D.
Gehring. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press: 1-8.

Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point. New York, Little, Brown and Company.

Goldberg, F. (1991). Motion Picture Marketing and Distribution. Boston, MA,
Focal Press.

. Grant, B. K. (1986). Introduction. Film Genre Reader. B. K. Grant. Austin, TX,
University of Texas. Press: xi-xvi. .

102

Griffin, R. J., K. Neuwirth, et al. (2002). "Linking the heuristic-systematic model
and depth of processing." Communications Research 29: 705-732.

Grover, R. (2000). Lights, camera, web site. Business Week.

Hall, S. (2002). Tall Revenue Features: The Genealogy of the Modern
Blockbuster. Genre and Contemporary Hollywood. 8. Neale. London, British Film
Institute: 11-26.

Hampton, B. B. (1931). A History of the Movies. New York. ‘
Handel, L. (1950). HollywoodJLooks at It Audience, Urbana.

Hanson, S. (2002). "Making a big noise about your business." Director 56(2): 40.

 

Henning-Thurau, T., G. Walsh, et al. (2001). "An Investigation into the Factors
Determining the Success of Service Innovations: The Case of Motion Pictures."
Academy of Marketigq Science Review 2001: 1-20.

Hirschman, E. .C. (1980). "lnnovativeness, Novelty Seeking and Consumer
Creativity." Journal of Consumer Research 7(December): 283-295.

Hirshleifer, J. and J. G. Reiley (1992). The Analytics of Uncertainty and
Information. Boston, Cambridge University Press.

Hoppenstand, G. (1998). Hollywood and the'Business of Making Movies: The
Relationship between Film Content and Economic Factors. The Motion Picture
Mega-Industry. Needham Heights, MA, Allyn and Bacon.

Hughlett, M. (2005). Bloggers blend business with stuff they like
Advertisers take notice of Web logs, especially those that draw large audiences,
loyal followers. Chicago Tribune.

Isailovic, D. J. (2000). The Forefront of Digital Cinema In the USA - The World
Created by the Convergence of IT and Clfi. Content Management Forum.

103

Jacoby, J. and W. D. Hoyer (1981). What if Opinion Leaders Didn‘t Know More?
A Question of Nomological Validity. Advances in Consumer Research. K. B.
Monroe. Ann Arbor, MI, Association for Consumer Research. 8: 299-303.

Kaminsky, S. M. (1985). American Film Genres. Chicago, Nelson-Hall.

. Kassarjian, H. H. (1981). Low Involvement: A Second Look. Advance in
Consumer Research. K. 8. Monroe. Ann Arbor, MI, Association for Consumer
Research. 8: 31-34.

Katona, G. and E. Mueller (1955). A Study of Purchase Decisions. Consumer
Dehavior: The Dynamics of Consumer Reaction. L. H. Clark. New York, New
York University Press: 30-87.

Katz, E. and P. Lazarsfeld (1955). Personal Influence. Glencoe, IL, The Free
Press.

Kiel, G. C. and R. A. Layton (1981). "Dimensions of Consumer Information
Seeking Behavibr." Journal of Marketiryq Regarch 18(May): 233-239.

King, C. W. and J. O. Summers (1967). Dynamics of Interpersonal
Communications: An Interaction Dyad. Risk Taking and Informaiton Handling in
Consumer Behavior. D. F. Cox. Boston, Harvard University Press.

Kramer, P. (2002). "The Best Disney Film Disney Never Made": Children's Films
and the Family Audience in American Cinema since the 19603. Genre and
Dontemporary Hollywood. S. Neale. London, British Film Institute: 185-200.

Levack, K. (2002). Digital Dawinism: Piracy pushes progress. EContent. 25: 6-9.

Levy, E. (1987). And the winner is.The Histog/ & Politics of The Oscar Awards.
New York, NY, The Ungar Publishing Company.

Levy, M. R. (1978). "Opinion Leadership and Television News Use." Public
Opinion Quarterly 42(Fall): 402-406.

104

Litman, B. R. (1983). "Predicting Success of Theatrical Movies: An Empirical
Study." Journal of Popular Culture 16(Spring): 159-75.

Litman, B. R. (1998). The Motion Picture Mega Industry. Needham Heights, MA,
Allyn & Bacon.

Litman, B. R. and L. Kohl (1989). "Predicting Financial Success of Motion
Pictures: The '803 Experience." Journal of Media Economics(Fall): 35-50.

Litwik, M. (1986). Reel Power: The Struggle for Influence and Success in the
New Hollywood. New York, William Morrow and Co., Inc.

Low, R. (1949). The History of the British Film, 1906-1914. London.

MacKenzie, S. B. and R. J. Lutz (1989). "An Empirical Examination of the
Structural Antecendents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting
Context." Journal of Marketing 53(April): 48-65.

MacKenzie, S. B. and R. A. Spreng (1992). "How Does Motivation Moderate the
Impact of Central and Peripheral Processing of Brand Attitudes and Intentions?"
Journal of Donsumer Research 18 (4): 519-529.

Maland, C. J. (1988). The Social Problem Film. Handbook of American Film
Genres. W. D. Gehring. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press: 305-330.

McCarthy, M. (1999). The Blair Web Project. Mediaweek. 9: 52-56.

Merritt, R., Ed. (1985). Nickelodeon Theaters 19051914: Building an Audience
for Movies. The American Film Industry, revised edition. Madison, WI, University
of Wisconsin Press. -

Midgley, D. F. (1976). "A Simple Mathematical Theory of Innovative Behavior."
iournal of Consumer Research 3(June): 31 -41.

Midgley, D. F. and G. R. Dowling (1978). "Innovativeness: The Concept and Its
Measurement." Journal of Consumer Research 4(March): 229-242.

105

Miniard, P. W., S. Bhatla, et al. (1991). "Picture-Based Persuasion Processes
and the Moderating Role of Involvement." Journal of Consumer Research 18(1):
92-107.

Mitra, A. (1995). "Price Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations: The Moderating
Role of Motivation and Attibute Information." Journal of Bysiness Research 33:
187-195.

Morton, V. (2000). Hype.com. Insight on the News. 16.

MPAA. (2003). "US. Entertainment Industry: 2002 MPA Market Statistics."
Retrieved March, 2003, from www.mpaaorg.

MPAA (2005). 2004 / 2005 Encyclopedia of Exhibition, NATO.

Nabi, R. L. (1999). "A Cognitive-Functional Model for the Effects of Discrete
Negative Emotions on Infromation Processing, Attitude Change, and Recall."
Commtmication Theory 9(3): 292-320.

Neale, S. (1995). Questions of Genre Film Genre Reader II B. K. Grant. Austin,
TX, University of Texas Press: 159- 186.

Neale, S. (2002). Introduction. Genre and Contemporary Hollwvood. S. Neale.
London, British Film Institute: 1-10.

Neelamiegham, R. and D. Jain (1999). "Consumer choice process for experience
goods: An econometric model and analysis." Journal of Marketing Research
36(3): 373-387.

Neelamiegham, R. and D. Jain (1999). "Consumer Choice Process for
Experience Goods: An Economic Model and Analysis. " Journal of Market
Research 36(3). 373- 386.

Nelson, P. (1970). "Information and Consumer Behavior." Journal of Political
Economy 78(2): 31 1-329.

106

Nelson, P. (1981). Consumer Information and Advertising. Eponomics of
Information. M. Galatin and R. D. Leiter. Boston, M. Nijhoff Publishing: 42-82.

NTIA. (2002). "A nation on-Iine: how Americans are expanding their use of the
Internet." from pytpzllwww.ntia.doc.@/ntiahome/dn/index.html.

. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill. New York, New York.
Oldenburg, A. (2006). TV goes to blogs. USA TODAY: DI -2.

Owen, B. and S. Wildman (1992). Vi_<1eo Economics, Harvard University Press. '

Petty, R. E. and J. Cacioppo (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central
and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, New York, Springer-Verlag.

Petty, R. E. andJ. Cacioppo (1986). "The Elaboration Likelihood Model of
Persuasion." Advances in ExperimentaLSocLiI Psycholgqy19: 123-205.

Price, L. L. and L. F. Feick (1984). The Role of Interpersonal Sources in External
Search: An Informational Perspective. flames in Consgmer Research. T. C.
Kinnear. Ann Arbor, MI, Association for Consumer Research: 250-253.

Raju, P. S. (1980). "Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality,
Demographics, and Exploratory." Qprnal of Consumer Research 7(December):
272-282.

Richmond, V. P. (1977). "The Relationship Between Opinion Leadership and
Information Acquisition." Human Communica_ti0n Research 4(FaII): 38-43.

Riffe, D., S. Lacey, et al. (1998). Analyzing Media Messages Using Qualitative
Dpntent A_nalvsis in Research. Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawerence Erlbaum

Associates.

Robertson, T. S. (1971). Innovative Dehavior and Commgnication. New York,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

107

Robertson, T. S. and J. H. Myers (1969). "Personality Correlates of Opinion
Leadership and Innovative Buying Behavior." Jouranl of MarketinLResearch
6(May): 164-168.

Robertson, T. S., J. Zielinski, et al. (1984). Consumer Dehavior. New York, The
Free Press.

Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusions of Innovations. New York, The Free Press.

Saffer, H. (2002). Alcohol Advertising and Youth. Journal of Studies on Alcohol.
N. A. C. o. A. A. a. A. T. F. o. C. D. N. I. o. A. A. a. Alcoholism. New Jersey,
Center of Alcohol Studies, The State University of New Jersey Rutgers. 14.

Sandler, K. S. (2002). Movie Ratings as Genre: The Incontestable R. Genre and
Contemorary Hollywood. 8. Neale. London, British Film Institute: 201 217.

Sawhney, M. and J. Eliashberg (1992). A stochastic model for the effect of
distribution strategy on the adoption of innovations, Working paper, The Wharton
School, University of Pennsylvania. ‘ '

Sawhney, M. S. and J. Eliashberg (1996). "A Parsimonious Model for
Forecasting Gross Box Office Revenues of Motion Pictures." Marketing Sciences
15(2): 113-31.

Schatz, T. (1986). The Structural Influence: New Directions in Film Genre Study.
Film anre Reader. B. K. Grant. Austin, TX, University of Texas Press. I: 91-101.

Scott, W. (1955). "Reliability of Conent Analysis: The Case of Nominal Scale
Coding." Public Opinion Quarterly 19: 321 -325.

Setoodah, R. (2006). Oscars: 'Brokeback' Heartbreak. Newsweek. 147: 8.
Sharrett, C., November). _U_SA Today. 129, 67. (2000). USA Today. 129: 67.

Slama, M. E. and A. Tashchian (1985). "Selected Socioeconomic and
Demographic Characteristics Associated with Purchase Involvement." Journal of
Marketing 49(Winter): 72-82.

108

Sobchack, T. (1986). Genre Film: A Classical Experience. Film Genre Reader. B.
K. Grant. Austin,TX, University of Texas Press. I: 102-113.

Sochay, S. (1994). "Predicting the performance of motion pictures." Journal of
Medificonomics 7(4): 1-20.

Stanley, T. L. (2005). Hollwyood Ending? Advertising Age: 1, 23.

Stigler, G. (1961). "The Economics of Information." Journal of Political Economy
69(June): 213-225.

Tedlow, R. S. (1990). New Perspectives. New and Improved: The Story of Mass
Marketingin America. Church. New York: 410-411.

Thorelli, H. B., H. Becker, etal. (1975). The Informatin Seekers. Cambridge, MA,
Ballinger Publishing Company. -

Thorelli, H. B. and S. V. Thorelli (1977). _Consumer Information Systems and
ConsgLner Policy. Cambridge, MA, Ballinger Publishing Company.

Todorov, A., S. Chaiken, et al. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social
information processing. The persuasion handbook: development in theory and
practice. J. P. Dillard and M. Pfau. London, Sage: 195-211.

Travis, R. (1990). "The Routinization of Film Criticism." Journal of Popular
Culture 23(4): 51-66.

Tudor, A. (1986). Genre. Film Genre Reader. B. K. Grant. Austin, TX, University
of Texas: 3-10.

Udell, J. G. (1966). "Purchase Behavior of Buyers of Small Electrical
Appliances." gpgrnal of Marketing 30(October): 50-52.

Vogel, H. L. (2001). Entertainment Industry Analysis - A Guide For Financial
Analysis. New York, NY, Cambridge University Press.

109

Wagstaff, J. (2004). The Beauty of Blogging. Far Eastern Economic Review.
Hong Kong. 167: 40-42.

Walker, L. (2006). When it comes to blogs, there aren't enough words. lug
Washinggin Post, washingtonpostcom.

Wallace, W., A. Seigerman, et al. (1993). "The Role of Actors and Actresses in
the Sucess of Films: How Much Is a Movie Star Worth?" Journal of Cultural
Economics 17(1): 1-27.

Wang, S., J. Blackledge, et al. (2005). The Future of Filmed Entertainment - Is It
Time to Change the Windows? North American Eguity Research. J. P. M. S. Inc.,
JP. Morgan Securities Inc.: 1-22.

Ward, D. (2000). Experts see web as tool, not enemy. Video Store. 22: 40.

H Warshow, R. (1970). The Gangster as a Tragic Hero. The Immediate
Experience. New York, Antheneum Press.

Waxman, S. (2005). Pursuing The Scarcer Moviegoers. New York Times. New
York: 39.

Waxman, S. (2006). Missed It In the Theater Today? See It on DVD Tonight.
The New York Times. New York.

Westbrook, R. A. (1987). "Product / Consumption Based Affective Responses
and Post Purchase Processes." Journal of Consumer Research 14 (August):
258-270. .

Wildman, S. (1995). "Trade Liberalization and Policy for Media Industries: A
Theoretical Examination of Media Flows." Canadian gmirnal of Communications
20: 367-388. .

Williamson, P., R. LaRose, et al. (2003). I had to Look. HavingRead the Dock:
Determinants of Film Attendence in the Information Age. Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, Missouri.

110

Wyatt, J. (1994). High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood. Austin, TX,
University of Texas Press.

Wyatt, R. O. and D. P. Badger (1984). "How Reviews Affect Interest in and
Evaluation of Films." Journalism Quarterly 61 (Winter): 874-78.

Wyatt, R. O. and D. P. Badger (1987). "To Toast, Pan or Waffle: How Film
Reviews Affect Reader Interest and Credibility Perception." Newspaper Research
Journal 8(Summer): 19-30.

Wyatt, R. O. and D. P. Badger (1990). " Effects of information and evaluation in
film criticism." LLopmalism Quarterly 67: 359-368.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). "Measuring the Involvement Construct." Journal of
Consumer Research 12(December): 341 -352.

Zaichowsky, J.L. (1987) The Personal Involvement InVentory: reduction, revision
and application to advertising. Simon Fraser University Press.

Zufryden, F. (2000). "New film Website promotion and box-office performance."
Journal of Advertising Research 40(1/2): 55.

Zufryden, F. S. (1996). "Linking advertising to box office performance of new film

releases--a marketing planning model." Journal of Advertising Research 36(4):
29.

111

 

   

111111111111111,111,111