Models of cinema demand have tended to employ aggregate data and focus on price and income as key variables. Surprisingly, the effects of travel time and location have not been formally investigated. The authors do so, following developments in the environmental economics literature, by presenting estimates of individual travel cost models for multiplex and nonmultiplex cinemas. A key finding is that travel time has a significant negative effect on nonmultiplex cinema trips, but that this does not hold for multiplex trips; reasons for this are advanced. In the case of multiplex cinema trips, a range of phenomena relating to minimising time-cost uncertainty are shown to be significant. The authors also contribute to an explanation for the ‘overscreening’ phenomenon observed in the United Kingdom and the USA, which has led to the closure of some relatively recently built multiplexes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BockstaelN EStrandI EHanemannW M, 1987, “Time and the recreation demand model”American Journal of Agricultural Economics69293–302.
2.
ChisholmD CNormanG, 2002, “Spatial competition and demand: an application to motion pictures”, working paper, Department of Economics, Tufts University, Medford, MA.
3.
CollinsAEvansA, 1994, “Aircraft noise and property values: An artificial neural network approach”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy28175–197.
4.
CollinsAHandCSnellM, 2002, “What makes a blockbuster? Economic analysis of film success in the United Kingdom”Managerial and Decision Economics23343–354.
5.
DavisP, 2000, “Entry, cannibalization and bankruptcy in the US motion picture exhibition market”, mimeo, Sloan School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
6.
De VanyALeeC, 2001, “Quality signals in information cascades and the dynamics of the distribution of motion picture box office revenues”Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control25593–614.
7.
DochertyDMorrisonDTracyM, 1987The Last Picture Show? (BFI Publishing, London).
8.
DyjaE, 1999BFI Film and Television Handbook 2000 (British Film Institute, London).
ForrestDSimmonsRFeehanP, 2002, “A spatial cross-sectional analysis of elasticity of demand for soccer”Scottish Journal of Political Economy49336–356.
11.
GrummetK-PCoulingK, 2000Cinemagoing 8 PO Box 450, Leicester LE2 2YE.
12.
GwytherM, 1999, “The big box office bet”Management Today (March) 48–52.
13.
HarbordJ, 2002Film Culture: Production, Distribution and Consumption (Sage, London).
14.
Highways Agency, 1996Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, volume 13 (The Stationery Office, London).
15.
HubbardP, 2000, “Save our screens?”Town and Country Planning69(10) 299–301.
16.
HubbardP, 2002, “Screen-shifting: Consumption, ‘riskless risks’ and the changing geographies of cinema”Environment and Planning A341239–1258.
17.
KeelerTLeonardAFisherP, 1975The Full Costs of Urban Transport monograph 21, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Berkeley, CA.
18.
KivlehanN P, 2004, “Return of the silver screens”Estates Gazette 27 March, pages 88–91.
19.
LancasterK, 1966, “A new approach to consumer theory”Journal of Political Economy74132–157.
20.
Liston-HeyesCHeyesA, 1999, “Recreational benefits from the Dartmoor National Park”Journal of Environmental Management5569–80.
21.
McKeanJJohnsonDWalshR, 1995, “Valuing time in travel cost demand analysis: An empirical investigation”Land Economics7196–105.
22.
MillsE SHamiltonB W, 1994Urban Economics (HarperCollins, New York).
23.
MonkC, 1999, “Heritage films and the British cinema audience in the 1990s”Journal of Popular British Cinema222–38.
24.
National Research Bureau, 2000Shopping Center Directory: East41st edition (National Research Bureau, Chicago, IL).
25.
PenningtonGTophamNWardR, 1990, “Aircraft noise and residential property values adjacent to Manchester International Airport”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy2449–59.
26.
ReillyW J, 1931The Law of Retail Gravitation (The Knickerbocker Press, New York).
27.
The Economist2004, “Romancing the disc”, 7 February, pages 63–64.
28.
ThraneC, 2000, “Men, women, and leisure: Scandanavian evidence of gender inequality”Leisure Sciences22109–122.
29.
US Department of Transportation, 1990National Household Transportation Survey 1990Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, DC, http://npts.ornl.gov/npts/1990/index.html.
30.
US Department of Transportation, 2003National Household Transportation Survey 2001Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, DC.
31.
VerhoeffR, 1992, “Explaining differences in the geographical reach of performances”Journal of Cultural Economics16(2) 73–82.
32.
WachsMTaylorB DLevineEOngP, 1993, “The changing commute: A Case study of the jobs–housing relationship over time”Urban Studies301711–1730.
33.
WalsheP, 1992, “Probing the potential or seriously taking the arts less seriously”Journal of the Market Research Society34437–452.
34.
WardF A, 1983, “Measuring the cost of time in recreation demand analysis: Comment”American Journal of Agricultural Economics65167–168.
