Methodological introduction
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 2009 edition consists of a series of comparative tables, covering
the period from 1989 up to and including 2008, 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 up to 1st January 2009. A section devoted to digital cinema
worldwide also appears, updated as at 1st January 2009, with a Focus on
Europe as at 30 June 2009. 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.
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. 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 public 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. 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.
The admission prices given in the relevant comparative tables concern
the average admission prices. This is unavoidable, because they can only
be determined by dividing GBO by the number of admissions. These quotients
are, of course, affected by the discount actions in a country. The consequence
thereof is, that these average prices do not reflect what the cinemagoers
think about their level. Recent research in the Netherlands has made clear
that they think that the admission prices are about 21.5% higher than
their factual average, which is not irrational because the average price
is not the price to be paid at the box office for seeing a certain film3.
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)4 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 - 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. Source: R. van Eldik, "De prijs en de consument" [The price
and the consumer], UtrechtUniversity, July 2009.
4. 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).