|
1 - Introductory remarks
Differently
from the forewords, this introduction is of a more technical nature. Not only
in the idiomatic usage in the film industry, but also in statistical
publications different definitions of the same concept (e.g. “multiplex” and
“co-production”) are used, which cause confusion and misunderstandings. With
the “European Cinema Yearbook” we also want to contribute to the unity of a
reasoned terminology. We are aware of the fact that once different concepts
are placed in relation to one another, they appear to be more complicated
than at first sight (e.g. the significance of an international comparison of
average admission prices and of the meaning of “screen density”). However,
for those who use this statistical Yearbook for more than a number of crude
statistical figures, a more analytical approach is indispensable. Therefore,
we hope that the “yellow pages” of the “European Cinema Yearbook” are
appreciated as a contribution to a better understanding of developments in
the cinema industry.
2 -
The contents of the Yearbook
The 2007 edition consists of a series of comparative tables, covering the
period from 1989 up to and including 2006, which offer a clear and immediate
picture of the overall situation and of the trends in the cinema industry in
34 countries of Western, Central and Eastern Europe and of the Mediterranean
Rim. Following a long tradition, this edition is completed by a section
dedicated especially to multiplex cinemas, documenting the situation at 31 October
2007. A section devoted to digital cinema worldwide also appears, listing the
digital cinemas equipped with DLP CinemaTM technology as at 31 December 2007.
This introduction deals with a number of statistical problems, some of which
are controversial. The purpose of this Yearbook is not only to give reliable
data, but also to clarify concepts that are frequently the object of
misunderstandings and mistaken interpretations. In the statistical part many
notes are included, many of which indicate restrictions, making some figures
less significant, though more realistic. Some notes, however, are of an
essential nature, and refer to sections of this introduction. As is customary
in statistics, data that is not available is marked by a dot (.); figures of
exactly zero are indicated by a dash (-), and those approaching zero by 0, 0,0 or 0,00. A description of the working definitions of
the terms used in this Yearbook follows this introduction.
3 -
The use of sources
To
avoid inaccuracy, we gather our data as closely as possible to primary
sources, starting out from the national and international associations of the
European cinema industry. Since, in many cases, they are members of MEDIA Salles, this facilitates our work together. MEDIA Salles is also in contact with other national and
international bodies. In cases where the same kind of data is supplied by
more than one organization, one of which being a national exhibitors’ or
distributors’ association, we consider one of the latter two as being the
most reliable source of data concerning cinema-going, unless the figures
provided by it are clearly questionable. Thus, by relying on the collegiality
within the cinema industry, the Yearbook is, as it were, a collective
publication of the respective associations, and in this way information is
gathered that would not have been obtained otherwise. However, since some
associations and institutions do not have this range of data available and in
some countries one seems to place more value on statistical information than
in other countries (i.e. is reluctant to publish it), we have in certain
cases been obliged to include data provided by other agencies or taken from
publications, which must be considered secondary sources, if not tertiary. On
the other hand, firms providing data concerning technical equipment,
advertising receipts etc., are the primary sources in their respective
fields. The consequence of this view is that in this framework a governmental
statistical agency is not to be seen as a primary source just because it is
governmental, but only if it is directly responsible for the content of the
information (as is the case with CNC in France and FFA in Germany). Furthermore,
we observe that in some publications the use of sources is not always as
clear as it should be and leads to questions as to how the data quoted has
been obtained. In principle, the practice of indicating oneself as the source
without mentioning how data has been obtained (by calculation, estimation or
even only by subjective evaluation) is judged by us to be inappropriate. Another
practice we are critical of is indicating that data is not available whilst
in fact it is. This practice, which is to be found in some statistical
publications, unjustly throws a bad light not only on the publication
concerned but also on the primary sources involved (e.g. an exhibitors’
association). Nevertheless, when information from primary sources was lacking,
we made use of such secondary ones, leaving it to the reader to evaluate the
reliability of the data concerned. Approximate data is indicated by the
prefix c. and it is written in italics. For a number of countries, the
figures for the gross distribution revenue and/or the average film rental are
rough estimations. In these cases (indicated by c.) we chose the figure
judged by us to be the most reliable. Nevertheless, these figures are not to
be seen as very significant. Lastly, we should point out that, whilst until
2001 the sources used for
Germany
were FFA as well as SPIO, with the consent of the latter we now use mainly
the FFA. As regards
Switzerland
, Procinema figures were used until 2003, whilst
since 2004 we have been using as our source the Federal Office of Statistics
(OFS), which also provides information on
Liechtenstein
.
4 –
Currencies
In
the comparative tables, data expressed in money values – up to 1998 – is
shown in ECU and in EURO from 1999, whilst in the national reports it is given
in the respective national currencies (for the Euro area, up to 2001). Due to
changes in these currencies’ ECU/EURO exchange rates, it is, therefore,
possible that the fluctuations of certain data (e. g. average admission
prices) are not exactly equal to those shown in the respective national
currencies. To get an impression of the development in ticket prices and box
offices in one country, one must look at the chapters about individual
countries (“European Cinema Yearbook”, “Source Document” – www.mediasalles.it/yearbook.htm),
whilst the comparative tables serve in the first place to compare the figures
in the different countries. Relative ECU/EURO exchange rates were taken for
the last month of the year in question (see currency table). The figures for
which secondary data sources in US dollars were used are not shown in these
tables, since the relevant US dollar exchange rates used in their
calculations are unknown and therefore cannot be accurately converted into
ECU/EURO equivalents. The use of ECU (and of EURO since 1999) for the
comparative tables seems obvious because this Yearbook is about European
data. Furthermore, the use of US dollars in comparative tables, as found in
some other publications, is less appropriate for comparisons between data concerning
successive years because the exchange rate of the dollar has fluctuated much
more than that of the ECU.
5 -
Art cinemas
It
also our custom to provide an entry on art cinemas for each country. The term
“art cinema” is however hard to define. The CICAE (International
Confederation of Art Cinemas in
Europe
) does
not have members in all countries, so we cannot use membership of CICAE as a
standard. We therefore chose to include in this category those cinemas which
are designated by the associations to which they belong as “art cinemas”. Another
problem in this area is that some art cinemas are non-commercial and run on
government subsidies, whilst others are commercial and sometimes receive a
partial subsidy. Unless otherwise indicated, we have only included commercial
“art cinemas”, i.e. those which are run by enterprises, whether partially
subsidised or not.
6 -
Market shares of European films
Particular
attention has been given to market share figures for national and
non-domestic European films. However, as these figures do not give an
impression of the effort which was made to show European films (looking at
the market share figures of US films in certain countries one might think
there are almost no European releases in these countries), we included, in
national profiles, whenever available, information on the number of playing
weeks or on screenings of European films, as well as a table showing a
breakdown of admissions and box office of European films, based on country of
origin. The aim of this scheme is to show the circulation of European films
outside the country of origin in Western, Central and
Eastern
Europe
. It should be kept in mind that the market shares of
domestic films and of non domestic European films are arithmetically also dependent
on the success of US films. Taking this into account, the results of European
films in European countries are more stable than is indicated by their market
shares1. Whilst in the vast majority of cases it is not
difficult to decide if a film is to be regarded as European, the decision as
to the countries in which a co-production should be listed as domestic, is
often arbitrary. A complicating factor is that in film statistics market
shares of domestic films are indicated inclusive of coproductions.
This is no problem in the country from which the main contributions to the
production of a film originate and where the film also reflects something of
that country’s culture. However in a number of cases a film is also listed as
a co-production in countries from which the contribution is marginal or does
not concern content (e.g. purely financial), thus causing it to remain
foreign in the public’s eyes. This means that also in such cases the
admissions to a co-production are counted as domestic in more than one
country, thereby favouring the market shares of domestic films, whilst making
the market shares of non-domestic European films (which get much political
attention) appear lower than they really are. Because the number of
co-productions is increasing, there is a growing difference between the
statistical registration of the market shares of non-domestic European films
and what would be registered if a correct operational definition of
co-production were used. Therefore we recommend that the European Commission
should at least introduce a guideline on this matter2. A correct registration of market shares of
European films is also impeded by counting all co-productions of one or more
European producer(s) with a US one as European films, whilst, in fact, part
of these films have a purely American character.
7 -
Admission prices
Converted
to EURO the average admission prices vary considerably from country to
country. However, the differences are much smaller when the prices are
adjusted to Purchasing Power Parity. This variation is again different when
the prices are adjusted to GDP per capita, which is another way of comparing
the average “real” ticket prices. These calculations demonstrate that the
significance of differences between the average ticket prices depends very
much on the way these prices are compared. A further comparative table
regards annual per capita spending on cinema tickets. Additionally, in the
chapters on certain countries we have added the highest ticket price charged,
usually in the capital cities.
8 -
Screen density
Screen
density is usually indicated as the number of inhabitants per screen (being
its reverse). As is rightly stated already in Screen Digest of September 1994
(p. 202) “the relationship between screen density and ticket sales is
especially pertinent at a time when multiplex operators are implementing
expansion plans in many parts of the world”. At first sight it appears that
there is a direct link between screen density and admissions per capita, “but
such a simple analysis would be to ignore some extremely important social and
economic factors” (ibid., p. 203). One of these factors is undoubtedly the
population density: in a densely populated area (especially if evenly
spread), people have the choice of a number of cinema screens within a short
distance. However, in countries (or regions) with a low population density,
the screen density may be high if one uses the number of inhabitants per
screen as a measurement, as is e.g. the case in
Sweden
and
Norway
.
Between population density and screen density a considerable correlation (
0.82 in
1991 and
0.84 in
1995)3 has been ascertained. From this insight, the
following hypothesis can be deduced: “the higher the population density, the
lower the screen density can be in order to bring about under otherwise equal
circumstances (cet. par.) a certain number of
admissions per capita”. The impact of the population spread has been studied
more in detail in “Cinemagoing Europe” (Dodona Research 1994). The data given for
Norway
is a clear illustration: it is the
third most densely screened country in Western Europe but
Oslo
is more densely screened than the
national average for all but four European countries (pages 17-18). However,
because even insiders often use rather superficial reasoning about the
relation between the number of people per screen and admissions per capita,
which can have severe consequences for the whole industry, since the third
edition of the Yearbook another way of measuring screen density has been
introduced, namely the density of screens per square kilometre. As to the
number of screens in a country, Dodona Research,
1994, remarks that the absence of data on full-time and part-time screens is
critical (p. 17). Of course, not only should closed cinemas not be counted,
but it is also as well to exclude cinemas giving very few screenings. However,
even full-time screens form a rather heterogeneous group as regards the
number of performances given. For instance a screen with only one performance
every day of the year is more similar to a so-called part-time screen with
three daily performances during six months than to a screen with continuous
performances. Therefore, a mere division between full-time screens on the one
hand and part-time screens on the other, would not
result in a statistical improvement. Besides, it is very difficult to obtain
reliable data on the yearly number of performances in each country. This
statistical imperfection is acceptable and in our opinion does not constitute
a major problem. However, as far as this was published, since the 1997
edition we have published this type of information.
9 -
Advertising receipts
The
data regarding these revenues is not fully comparable, because for some
countries the exhibitors’ shares are given, whilst for other countries only
the figures concerning total advertising revenues are known, sometimes even
including the production costs of advertisements.
10 -
Multiplexes/Megaplexes
Up
to now there is still no definition of “multiplex” that is generally employed
in all countries. This is regrettable because the terms “cinema complex”, “multiscreen”, “multiplex” and “megaplex”
or “mega cinema” are used and often misused, causing misunderstanding among
journalists and thus also among the public. A special term is only meaningful
if it is to be used to make a significant distinction. Based on econometric
research commissioned by Media Salles, London
Economics came to the conclusion that “the multiplex effect kicks in only
with 8 or more screens, not with 6 or
7”
. (“Cinema Exhibition in
Europe
,
White Book of the European Exhibition Industry”, MEDIA Salles 1994, second edition, Vol. 2, p. 48). A similar point of view is to be found
in Dodona Research 1994 (“Cinemagoing Europe”, p. 3). The criteria to be added to the definition of “multiplex” or
to define the term “megaplex” can, of course, only
be more or less arbitrary. To encourage a more generally accepted use of
terms, the General Assembly of the Union Internationale des Cinémas (UNIC) held in May 1998, decided
unanimously that, based on the above mentioned research, a conventional
cinema must have eight screens or more to be called a multiplex, and twice
this number, thus 16 screens or more, to be called a megaplex.
Of course, the General Assembly of UNIC was aware of the fact that more
criteria are of significant importance, e.g. parking facilities, stadium
seating, air conditioning, big screens, spacious foyers (see e.g. J. Ph. Wolff,
“Of multiplexes and multiscreens”, UNIC, Paris,
Dec. 1993 – also available in French). However, from a statistical point of
view, qualitative criteria like this are very difficult to handle. Because
there are not many sites with 8 or more screens that should not be called multiplexes
because they do not meet those qualitative criteria, the category 8 or more
is fairly homogeneous, which is a practical advantage. Admittedly, a negative
consequence of this operational definition is that a cinema with less than 8
screens becomes statistically a multiplex, by the backdoor as it were, when
one or more screens are added to the premises up to a total of 8 or more
screens. The reason for assigning a special term to multiplexes with a large
number of screens is that they apparently have a bigger catchment area than smaller multiplexes. The figure 16 is not based on the result of
scientific research, but is more or less arbitrary and could also have been
15 or
17. In
the meantime the criterion of eight screens or more has been adopted in most
European countries. In
France
it is (together with the condition of possessing more than thousand seats)
even the official definition of the Centre National de
la Cinématographie
(CNC). This definition is also used by the Social and Cultural Council of the
Dutch Government (May 2005). In the
UK
, however, the term “multiplex”
is mostly used for every newlybuilt cinema with
five or six screens. This is regrettable not only because no unity in the use
of the term can be achieved like this at least in (Western) European
countries, but also because the criterion of five or six screens marks an
arbitrary difference without referring to a distinguishing feature. Furthermore,
the criterion “purpose built” or “newly built” should not be used because
only the features of a conversion, or enlargement, of a cinema should matter.
(For deviant uses of the term “multiplex” see also the essay “Multiscreen, multiplex, megaplex?”
introducing the chapter “Multiplexes in
Europe
”).
To give a global impression of the extent to which multiplexes have
penetrated the respective cinema markets, the Research Group of MEDIA Salles introduced the concept degree of penetration of
multiplexes, meaning the number of screens in multiplexes as the percentage
of the total number of screens. These degrees are indicated in the table
“Density of screens in multiplexes”. Nonetheless, it can be understood that
this gives only a rough insight indeed, if one realises that changes in this
so defined degree are also dependent on changes in the number of screens
outside multiplexes. A new item in the comparative tables (“Multiplexes in
Europe”) are the quotients of the number of admissions per screen in
multiplexes and the number of admissions per screen in other cinemas. These
figures are a kind of indicator, namely of the relative effectiveness of
screens in multiplexes in a country. An advantage of this indicator is that
it is not dependent on the absolute values of the numerators and the denumerators, but only on the relation between these two
figures, making it possible to compare different markets in this respect
(e.g. in 2002 the average number of admissions per screen in multiplexes in
Spain was much lower than in the Netherlands but, due to the bigger
difference with respect to the number of admissions per screen in other
cinemas, the relative effectiveness was higher in Spain). One should keep in
mind that this indicator is of little significance in a year with a
relatively substantial overall addition of screens in multiplexes opened in
the course of the year, especially in the last part of it (this was, for
example, the case in the
Netherlands
in 2000 and 2002). Furthermore, calculating this indicator is not meaningful
when the degree of penetration of multiplexes reaches very high values, say
> 65%, because the composition of the other, remaining cinemas affects
their comparability (e.g. when there are hardly screens with mainstream
programming outside multiplexes in the big cities anymore).
Dr Joachim Ph. Wolff
1 J. Ph. Wolff, “The exhibition of European films revisited” (paper
presented in the MEDIA Salles seminar during Cinema
Expo International,
Amsterdam
,
June 1999).
2 This recommendation was also made by Dr André Lange (Eur. Audiovisual Observatory,
Strasbourg
). See E.J. Borsboom and J. Ph. Wolff (eds.), “Proceedings of the Seminar on Film Statistics on 26
June
2002 in
Amsterdam
”
(Research Foundation of the Neth. Cin. Fed., July 2002) See also:
J. Ph. Wolff, “Non domestic European Films on the West European markets”
(European Cinema Journal, May 2002).
3 J. Ph. Wolff, “Production is Key in the Film Industry”, Lelystad, 1998, p. 300. (His earlier calculation for 1991
is quoted by London Economics in Vol. 2 of MEDIA Salles’
“Cinema Exhibition in
Europe
. White Book of
the European Exhibition Industry”, vol. II, p. 15).
|
|