Introduction

Films are risky and uncertain commercial projects. As such, film industries are prone to integration between sectors of the film value system. This article seeks to engage economic reality of this topic through a case study of integrated Australian organisation Palace. Palace consists of two separate entities: Palace Cinemas and Palace Films. Palace Cinemas is an exhibitor: generating revenue through box-office and concession sales from feature films at cinemas (Gil, 2009). Palace Films is a distributor: tasked with finding audiences and best exploiting produced films through deals with exhibitors, advertising, and other means (Bloore, 2012; Gil, 2009). Working as one company with multiple interventions in the supply chain of films, Palace Cinemas and Palace Films have become part of a history of vertical integration in film markets. This article will analyse Palace as a vertically integrated distributor/exhibitor, with a particular interest in how Palace benefits from this structure. This article finds that Palace gains much from this structure in the form of minimised demand uncertainty and transactions costs. However, perhaps more interestingly, this structure serves Palace in their growing dominance in Australia’s film festival market.

Methodology:

This article will utilise qualitative analysis to investigate the case study of Palace Cinemas and Palace Films. For this article, ‘Palace’ will refer to the group as a whole, while ‘Palace Cinemas’ or ‘Palace Films’ will refer to the specific entities and their operations. Palace remains private and family owned to this day. As such, Palace produces no public financial reports. It would certainly be useful to be privy to such information. However, it does not discount Palace as a compelling case study that illustrates how vertical and horizontal integration is incentivised by the structure of film markets.

The primary method of analysis will be an engagement with academic literature, prior discussions of Palace’s placement in Australia’s film distribution market, and the general structure of Palace as a business. After a brief introduction to Palace and the broader Australian exhibition market, this article will separate the discussion into two main sections. Firstly, there will be a discussion as to how distributor/exhibitor integration is incentivised by uncertainty of film demand and the difficulty of maintaining distributor/exhibitor relationships. From this, there will be an application of these considerations to Palace, investigating what is gained from vertical integration, and how the market gap which they fill incentives integration. Secondly, the article will explore the role of festivals in the Australian distribution market. From this, the article will, with reference to the analysis of the first section, explore how Palace’s in-house festivals work as an alternate form of distribution.

Introduction to Palace Cinemas, Palace Films, and the Australian film exhibition market

As Carroll Harris notes, the Australian film exhibition market has an oligopolistic structure (2014). The industry is dominated by three exhibitors: Hoyts, Village Cinemas and Event Cinemas. These three organisations hold a massive share of the market. According to a report conducted Given et al. with Swinburne University and Screen Australia, in 2010 these theatres operated 53% of cinema screens (2013, p. 19). These large exhibitors are connected to and backed by large media conglomerates. Village Cinemas started as a film exhibitor in the 1950’s, but now is a subsidiary of a massive Australian distributor Village Roadshow (Village Roadshow, n.d.). Village Roadshow has distributed and produced many blockbusters – such as The Matrix (dir. Lana and Lilly Wachowski, 1999) and Mad Max: Fury Road (dir. George Miller, 2015) – and operates successful theme parks both domestically and internationally. On the other hand, Hoyts was purchased in 2015 by Chinese media mega-corporation Dalian Wanda, which were quick to expand Hoyt’s market share – now Hoyts holds 450 cinema screens in Australia (Reuters, 2015; Tiley, 2019). These exhibitors, backed by massive media conglomerates, dominate the oligopolistic market, particularly with regards to number of megaplexes – theatres with over ten screens (Given et al., 2013).

Palace occupies an interesting place in this market, being neither small independent cinema chain, nor subsidiary of a massive conglomerate. Palace was founded by owner Antonio Zeccola (Palace Cinemas, n.d.). Zeccola, progressing the work of his father, began his career in the 1960s running independent, niche, single screen film theatres based in Melbourne (Palace Cinemas, n.d.). Eventually this manifested into Palace Cinemas – taking the name from The Palace, an old theatre on Bourke St in Melbourne’s CBD. The business remains family owned as well as family operated. Benjamin Zeccola, Antonio’s son, assumed the role of CEO in 2013, and Antonio’s other three children head up various executive positions in the companies (ScreenHub, 2013). Seeking to supply a boutique cinema experience that is concerned with local markets and older audiences, Palace represents only 5% of the entire exhibition market, yet accounts for 50% of the exhibition of Australian and non-U.S. international cinema – henceforth referred to as ‘arthouse’ (Palace Cinemas, 2010; Tiley, 2019). This, coupled with recent organisational growth that now sees Palace operate 180 screens over 24 venues, led Richards and Carrol Harris to describe Palace Cinemas as “arthouse multiplex” (2020, p. 8); an expeditiously growing boutique cinema chain providing arthouse exhibition adjacent to blockbuster releases.

As a distributor connected to an exhibitor, Palace Films is somewhat a rarity in Australian market. Palace Films has operated as a domestic distributor for the Australian and New Zealand market since 1965 (Palace Films, n.d.). It specialises in Australian, international and ‘quality’ features and has distributed notable films such as Ten Canoes (Dir. de Heer & Djigirr, 2006) and Rams (dir. Hákonarson, 2015) which both won the prestigious ‘Un Certain Regard’ award at Cannes Film Festival (Palace Cinemas, 2010; Palace Films, n.d.). The major three exhibitors – Hoyts, Village Cinemas and Event Cinemas – all once maintained distribution branches. However, nowadays Village Cinemas is the only major exhibitor still connected to a large distributor (Given et al., 2013). In this sense, Palace Films is unique in the Australian market as a distributor directly connected to an exhibitor. Palace Films is specifically individual in this regard in the ‘mini’ category of distributors; those releasing between 20 and 49 films a year (Given et al., 2013). Palace Films’ output has been commendable and, as will be discussed shortly, is in a privileged position to release Australian features. As Given et al. discovered in their 2013 study, Palace Films distributed the fourth most Australian films between 1986 and 2012 of all distributors, and over the five year period of 2001 to 2005, Palace Films distributed the most Australian films (2013). In this sense, Palace Films is unique in the Australian film market thanks to its direct connection to a sizeable exhibitor, as well as its strength as a distributor of domestic content.  

Section one: Demand, distributors, exhibitors, and integration.

 This section will consider the benefits that vertical and horizontal integration in distribution and exhibition offer Palace. ‘Vertical integration’ refers to when an organisation operates multiple segments of the film value system – ‘value system’ being the various stages, from production to exhibition, that work together to deliver a film to consumers (Bloore, 2012, pp.30 and 41). ‘Horizontal integration’ refers to an organisation incorporating other organisations within the same segment of the film value system (Bloore, 2012, p.41). Vertical integration has a long a turbulent history in film industries. Distributor/exhibitor integration – such as exhibited by Palace – has at various points been ruled antitrust. The most famous example of this is the 1948 Paramount ruling which forced major distributors in Hollywood to divest from exhibition (de Vany, 2004). Similar rulings have occurred in other international markets, such as Japan (Sunada, 2012). Bringing similar measures to Australia have been discussed, but never enforced (Dermody & Jacka, 1982). As such, Palace can continue to expand, and continue to reap the benefits of controlling distribution and exhibition. However, prior to directly addressing Palace it is necessary to understand what elements of Australia’s film market incentivise integration.  

Kim contends that “Film industries are characterized by economies of scale and high uncertainties of demand” (2020, p.100). This is because films are extremely expensive products to produce, and yet their value to an audience is near impossible to determine prior to release (de Vany, 2004). This uncertainty has historically drawn economists to try and determine how demand works in this market. Firstly, as Hand discovered, while demand for individual films fluctuates and is hard to chart, film attendance is stable and determinable (Hand, 2002). As such, there is uncertainty regarding whatpeople attend at a theatre, but not in regard to when they will attend a cinema. Furthermore, von Rimscha found in a study after Global Financial Crisis that film demand is economic climate inelastic; demand for film remaining consistent regardless of economic circumstances (2013). In accordance with the above, de Vany and Wall found that film markets are ‘asymptomatically Pareto-distributed and [have] infinite variance’ (1999, p. 285). This refers to the reality that few films recoup their budgets, large profits are only gained in the rarest of cases, and there is no sure way to quantitatively predict success in the market. In this sense, film markets are expensive and risky markets with no assured returns.

With the general premise that assured predictions of success are fraught, many economists have explored elements of film distribution and exhibition which may affect demand. One popular element of study is the effect star actors have on a films demand (Albert, 1998; Cameron, 1986; de Vany & Wall, 1999; Nelson & Glotfelty, 2012). Findings have varied on this topic, some finding a positive correlation with success, some finding none. Generally, there is a consensus that only a select few stars have a discernible effect, and they are not necessarily who you might first expect. For instance, Cameron discovered that while Bill Murray and Barbra Streisand add value to films, Al Pacino in a lead role is a likely sign a film will underperform (1986). There are many other demand considerations that have been shown to have a positive effect, such as age, income, gender, marital status and willingness to pay (Irandoust, 2018; Prieto-Rodriguez et al., 2015; Rendondo & Holbrook, 2010).

However, the most significant effect on demand – for this case study – comes from word of mouth. There have been multiple studies that have found a positive correlation between word of mouth and film demand – ‘word of mouth’ referring to both opinions of professional critics and average members of a community (Irandoust, 2018; Ravid et al., 2006). This correlation is particularly significant for films that do not receive a wide release. ‘Wide release’ refers to the strategy of opening a film on many screens at the same time (Chen et al., 2013). This is a strategy adopted by the larger distributors for blockbuster pictures. Theatre distribution for ‘wide release’ films is inelastic – their quality does not affect the size of their release – and these films generally spend less time at theatres (McKenzie, 2009; Prieto-Rodriguez et al., 2015). Because of this release strategy word of mouth has a lessened effect as it has less time to develop throughout a film’s run. On the other hand, platform releases require word of mouth to attain distribution. ‘Platform release’ films open on a small number of screens and look to build demand through word of mouth and extended screening (Chen et al., 2013; Gil, 2009; McKenzie 2009). They are generally smaller budget films who cannot afford large marketing pushes; a category that houses most Australian features (Chen et al., 2013; McKenzie & Walls, 2013). This is significant for our case study as Palace’s unique market intervention is smaller budget films that require platform releases. Integration between distributor and exhibitor can be assurance for Palace that films that require word of mouth grown demand obtain the extended runs they need. Integration in this setting can be a means to enable the building of demand for smaller releases. While there can be no assurance of success, greater control in this market can position films to have the greatest possible chance of success.

The differing motives of distributors and exhibitors is another incentive for integration. How these two parties wish to exploit films in the market is very different. How distributors receive renumeration for their role in connecting producers to exhibitors – and thus audiences – is generally a 25% cut of the revenue after advertising has been recovered (Smith, 2014). Because of this, distributors wish to add value and assure the success of the individual films they distribute (Bloore, 2012; Gil, 2009; James Bailey, 1997). On the other hand, exhibitors do not exploit films, but audiences. They are not looking to assure the success of an individual film, but assure a constant stream of filmgoers (James Bailey, 1997). This is tied to ticketing as well as another primary revenue source that is not connected to distributors: concessions (Gil, 2009). In this relationship there are conflicts of interest. Distributors wish to have secured exhibition lengths for films to assure a certain level of renumeration. On the other hand, exhibitors want control over when to cut a film’s run to maximise the theatre’s profit. Integration in this setting can be a means to assure that there can be a compromise between interests.

 Integrating distributing and exhibiting operations serves Palace in several ways. Firstly, the most beneficial kind of exhibition can be guaranteed for Palace Films’ distributed content. As previously noted, smaller budget, non-blockbuster features require a building of demand through positive reception and word of mouth. This, however, is at odds with how exhibitors traditional desire to screen films – cutting any films that are not performing immediately. Integration allows Palace Films to circumvent this issue and continue to distribute their arthouse and niche content, as they can manipulate exhibition strategies to best suit each picture. This also serves the purpose of adding value to their film catalogue, which in turn allows them to increase individual film renumeration. In this sense, control over downstream systems – exhibition – serves Palace’s upstream system – distribution – in creating the best climate for building demand and alleviating uncertainty.

Integration of this kind also offers evident benefits for an exhibitor such as Palace Cinemas. One benefit is the substantial reduction of transaction costs. Due to their high uncertainty, films generally have huge transaction costs between exhibitors and distributors (Kim, 2020). These are dramatically lowered when this interaction is kept in-house. Yet, there are other operational benefits. Palace Cinemas’ branding as a boutique theatre experience is established through the architecture of their locations and their licensed concession stands which serve more upmarket offerings such as wine and olive-oil popcorn. This aligns with Carrol Harris’ special event model of screening: film exhibition that offers more than just the film experience (Carroll Harris, 2014). However, to offer such an experience, Palace Cinemas needs a stream of boutique films. In connecting arthouse film exhibition and arthouse film distribution there is a unification of brand identity where both entities serve to build each other. Palace Cinemas benefits from a strong upstream association with a distributor that fulfills their audience demographic needs.

This unified building of branding has extended to various horizontal expansions. Gutierrez-Navratil et al. found that horizontal expansion in the exhibition industry is incentivised as there are significant competition effects between theatres (2014). While this is certainly an element of Palace’s general expansion, there is more nuance to their acquisitions. Palace’s most public horizontal move was the 2015 acquisition of iconic Melbourne venue the Astor (Judah, 2015). The Astor, a single-screen cinema primarily showing cult-classic films, was purchased as a going-concern by Palace when the venue almost closed (Judah, 2015). This is one of several examples of expansions or investments made by Palace that do not change operations of the venue in question, but instead assure continued survival. Another example of this is independent arthouse theatre the Nova, of which Palace is a significant shareholder (Judah, 2015). While this should not be explained away as purely altruistic – Palace is still producing revenue from these moves – they also serve to establish and build boutique film audiences more generally in the cities which Palace operates. This furthers both the brand of Palace, as well as their continued development of an audience for their niche brand of exhibition.

Section Two: Film festivals as a form of distribution

In recent years Palace has developed their yearly program of inhouse film festivals considerably. These festivals are generally concerned with the output of a specific European country; Palace running Polish, British, Italian, Spanish, German and Scandinavian film festivals (Palace Cinemas, n.d.). These festivals are intractable from the Palace brand, to the point where, as Richards and Carrol Harris note, the festivals have become a kind of franchise (2020). These festivals are not city specific; they tour the country performing at the Palace Cinema locations around Australia one after the other. In total, these festivals are an interesting development of screen exhibition. They are not quite traditional festival, not quite traditional film distribution. Unlike most festivals, they are not about building a community – be that economic or cultural – but about building a brand (Richards & Carroll Harris, 2020).

Film festivals have largely been discussed with two primary models in mind: business festivals and audience festivals. Business festivals are festivals that largely exist for economic reasons (Carroll Harris, 2017). They operate as spaces where industry connections are made, where reputation within the industry is gained, and where films can be tested prior to wide release (Richards & Carroll Harris, 2020). These festivals are internationally famous, filled with celebrity glamour, and predominantly European, consisting of festivals such as Cannes Film Festival, Venice Film Festival and Berlin Film Festival (Stevens, 2016b). They are a adverts for the nations in which they exist, and are competition and networking opportunities for the culturally elite; de Valck describing these festivals as the ‘Olympics of film’ (quoted in Stevens, 2016b, p.34). On the other hand, audience festivals are community centric and exist to present audiences with films that they would otherwise not see (Carroll Harris, 2017). These festivals often arise out of specific communities or diasporas, and serve unmet demand for specific genres of film, or films that portray underrepresented identities. Stevens argues that Australian film festivals have historically followed the audience model, structured not around awards, industry events and nation building, but edification for audiences (Stevens, 2016a, 2016b). And this kind of audience-facing festival curation has been successful in Australia’s biggest cities. In 2016 Melbourne held 40 individual film festivals (Stevens, 2016c).

Festivals in the audience festival model are not just events, but alternate forms of distribution. As both Carroll Harris (2017) and Peranson (2008) note, festivals of these kinds are in the business of bringing films that would otherwise not be commercially viable to cinephile audiences. In this sense, Carroll Harris suggests that festivals of this type should be regarded as an alternate distribution platform. As she notes, this is something that has developed considerably in recent years as the arthouse market has become less viable due to the growing strength of mega-budget blockbuster franchises, sequels and spin-offs (2017). Furthermore, Carroll Harris found that there is no strong correlation between success at an Australian film festival and success in wider distribution (2017). As such, these festivals are insular or enclosed distribution platforms: they exist as an entirely actualised form of distribution and as their own market, not just as a stepping-stone to generate buzz for a wider release.  

The above is why Palace’s growing intervention into Australia’s film festival market is interesting. Palace’s festivals are neither business nor audience directed. Instead, Palace is developing a new kind of festival; what Richards and Carroll Harris term ‘distributor-driven festival’ (2020, p.2). Palace and their distributor-driven festivals do not arise from a community or diaspora, but instead cater to them (Richards & Carroll Harris, 2020). Furthermore, the films programmed are not of the usual super-low-budget affair, but often successful international films that simply would not receive distribution otherwise. Opinions vary on whether these festivals offer much worth to Australian cinephiles. Writing for The Conversation, Dolgopolov suggests that this kind of festival is inauthentic as they do not arise from the diasporas the festivals portray (2013).  Journalist Anders Furze, writing for The Citizen, suggested that with their preference for mainstream European films, there is little experimental to challenge and develop audience taste (2017). Stevens notes that in Palace’s festivals the ‘event’ element of festivals is lost, as there is no connection to place or community, just to Palace Cinemas’ venues (2016a, p. 190). And yet, they all note that these distributor-driven festivals are the only means that these films would viably see theatrical distribution in Australia.

There are several ways the festivals add value to Palace. Firstly, they offer a revenue stream that would not be otherwise available. As noted above, the films shown, in general, are not viable for wider release. By holding festivals that incorporate films of this type, Palace can exploit films that would otherwise not be profitable. Furthermore, as Stevens notes, Palace’s film festivals feed into the greater brand identity (2016b). But more than that, as noted above, these festivals create a sort of franchise. Taking from economic studies that analysed a star lead actor’s effect on film demand, both Albert (1999) and Nelson and Glotfelty (2012) found that one primary effect stars had on the films they were in, was to be themselves an assurance of quality. Palace’s festivals likely work the same way. As a chain of festivals, there are certain expectations of quality an audience can take from one festival to the next. This develops both the brand of the festivals themselves, as well as Palace as an exhibitor. These festivals develop Palace’s market intervention; boutique theatres for discerning cinephilic audiences.

The above effects generally serve exhibition – thus Palace Cinemas – but there is obvious added value for distribution – Palace Films – as well. Palace’s festivals have served as a testing ground for international films that could possibly be developed for wider distribution in Australia. While, as mentioned above, there is no quantitative correlation between Australian festival success and wider theatrical success, it does offer Palace Films a chance to test films that could seek alternate distribution – such as video-on-demand services like Netflix. One example of this is Icelandic film Rams which after a successful run in the Scandinavian Film Festival was acquired by Palace Films for wider distribution (Furze, 2017). Another benefit for Palace Films – the entity the organises the festivals – is that their festivals are scarce, efficient and broad. ‘Scarce’ is referring to the fact that as a distributor running a festival, Palace can assure that films exhibited in their festivals cannot be exhibited elsewhere (Stevens, 2016a). ‘Efficient’ refers to the fact that usual transaction costs associated with festivals – such as hiring venues – are eliminated by the structure of Palace. ‘Broad’ refers to Palace’s reach across Australia, with sites in most major Australian cities, festivals can be toured and exploited in multiple locations. As such, Palace is able to scarcely, efficiently, and broadly distribute and exploit their festivals.

Palace as a distributor and exhibitor, through their vertically integrated business structure, is making an impactful intervention into Australia’s film festival market. Some may argue that this intervention does not benefit the broader filmgoing community – Palace creating an inauthentic form of festival. Yet, Palace’s integration of film festivals into its existing distributor/exhibiter system certainly benefits Palace.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Palace’s intervention in the Australian exhibition and distribution markets presents interesting progression of vertical integration in arthouse film exhibition. The primary limitation of current analysis was stated in the methodology section of this article. There is little concrete quantitative data on Palace due to their nature as a private organisation. Furthermore, the scope of the analysis of this article was incentive for Palace to integrate in distributor/exhibitor and film festival markets with little discussion of the effect this has on the surrounding market members. There is much room for future research. As noted, Carroll Harris and Stevens have both frequently commented on Palace, particularly with regards to the company’s interventions in the film festival market. However, these accounts are from a cultural studies background. Economic analysis of what Palace’s intervention in the festival market means for the economic landscape of the festival market would be academically significant. Most economic analysis into integration in film industries focusses on examples of great scale in industries such as Hollywood. But the benefits and effects of integration in smaller markets, such as Palace as ‘arthouse multiplex’, has seen little engagement. This topic is significant because Palace is continuing to strengthen their position in the market. As a result, the market may see some changes, particularly regarding film festivals as the singular form of arthouse distribution. And as this case study illustrates, there is incentive for Palace to keep increasing their market presence. The organisers of the 1976 Melbourne Film Festival once stated that “A film festival is two things: film and people” (quoted in Stevens 2016a, 201). With Palace’s entry into the market, perhaps now a film festival is becoming three things: film, people, and Palace.

References

Albert, S. (1998). Movie Stars and the Distribution of Financially Successful Films in the Motion Picture Industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22(4), 249–270. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41810673

Bloore, P. (2012). The screenplay business : Managing creativity and script development in the film industry. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1075346

Cameron, S. (1986). The Supply and Demand For Cinema Tickets: Some U.K. Evidence. Journal of Cultural Economics, 10(1), 38–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41811095

Carroll Harris, L. (2014). Window of Opportunity: The Future of Film Distribution in Australia. Metro Magazine, 182, 98–103. https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=2c725be4-a8ea-46a8-b1d1-d21dc217fa0d%40pdc-v-sessmgr02

Carroll Harris, L. (2017). Theorising film festivals as distributors and investigating the post-festival distribution of Australian films. Studies in Australasian Cinema, 11(2), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2017.1356611

Chen, X., Chen, Y., & Weinberg, C. B. (2013). Learning about movies: The impact of movie release types on the nationwide box office. Journal of Cultural Economics, 37(3), 359–386. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43549849.

de Heer, R., & Djigirr, P. (Dir.). (2006). Ten Canoes [film]. Palace Films.

de Vany, A. S. (2004). Hollywood economics how extreme uncertainty shapes the film industry. New York: Routledge.

de Vany, A., & Walls, W. D. (1999). Uncertainty in the Movie Industry: Does Star Power Reduce the Terror of the Box Office? Journal of Cultural Economics, 23(4), 285–318. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41810703

Dermody, S., & Jacka, E. (1982). Australian Film Industry: Monopolies in Exhibition and Distribution. Media International Australia, 25, 11–16. https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;res=IELAPA;dn=830100223

Dolgopolov, G. (2013). Do We Need a Film-Festival to Fly the Union Jack? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/do-we-need-a-film-festival-to-fly-the-union-jack-20961

Furze, A. (2017). Arthouse festivals reel in audiences, but there’s a plot twist. The Citizen. https://www.thecitizen.org.au/articles/arthouse-festivals-reel-audiences-theres-plot-twist

Gil, R. (2009). Revenue Sharing Distortions and Vertical Integration in the Movie Industry. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 25(2), 579–610. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewn004

Given, J., Curtis, R., & McCutcheon, M. (2013). Cinema in Australia: An industry profile. Swinburne University. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/312955

Gutierrez-Navratil, F., Fernandez-Blanco, V., Orea, L., & Prieto-Rodriguez, J. (2014). How do your rivals’ releasing dates affect your box office? Journal of Cultural Economics, 38(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-012-9188-0

Hákonarson, G. (Dir.) (2015). Rams [film]. Palace Films.

Hand, C. (2002). The Distribution and Predictability of Cinema Admissions. Journal of Cultural Economics, 26(1), 53–64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41810777

Irandoust, M. (2018). The Demand for Cinema in Sweden: An Application of Proportional Odds Model. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 48(5), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2017.1377658

James Bailey, J. (1997). Independent Film Exhibition: Country Queensland from the 1930’s to the 1960’s. Media International Australia, 85, 110–115. https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=087749329459019;res=IELLCC;type=pdf

Judah, T. (2015). Melbourne’s Last Art House: A True Picture Palace. Metro Magazine, 185, 124. https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=61b54a17-dc99-4d84-b1a5-fea7cbac25d1%40pdc-v-sessmgr01

Kim, M. (2020). Does Vertical Integration of Distributors and Theaters Ensure Movie Success? Journal of Asian Sociology, 49(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.2307/26909867

McKenzie, J. (2009). Revealed word-of-mouth demand and adaptive supply: Survival of motion pictures at the Australian box office. Journal of Cultural Economics, 33(4), 279–299. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41810777

McKenzie, J., & Walls, W. D. (2013). Australian films at the Australian box office: Performance, distribution, and subsidies. Journal of Cultural Economics, 37(2), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-012-9181-7

Miller, G. (Dir.). (2015). Mad Max: Fury Road [film]. Village Roadshow.

Nelson, R. A., & Glotfelty, R. (2012). Movie stars and box office revenues: An empirical analysis. Journal of Cultural Economics, 36(2), 141–166. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43549820

Palace Cinemas. (2010). Palace cinema’s new advisor. ArtsHub. https://www-artshub-com-au.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/news-article/news/film/media-release/palace-cinema-s-new-advisor-183001

Palace Cinemas. (n.d.). Palace Cinemas. https://www.palacecinemas.com.au

Peranson, M. (2008). First You Get the Power, Then You Get the Money: Two Models of Film Festivals. Cinéaste, 33(3), 37-38. https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=ef5fab8e-ac37-4f5c-8f0c-0a816e9176eb%40sessionmgr103.

Prieto-Rodriguez, J., Gutierrez-Navratil, F., & Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2015). Theatre allocation as a distributor’s strategic variable over movie runs. Journal of Cultural Economics, 39(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-014-9220-7

Ravid, S. A., Wald, J. K., & Basuroy, S. (2006). Distributors and film critics: Does it take two to Tango? Journal of Cultural Economics, 30(3), 201–218. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41810922

Redondo, I., & Holbrook, M. B. (2010). Modeling the appeal of movie features to demographic segments of theatrical demand. Journal of Cultural Economics, 34(4), 299–315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41811062

Reuters. (2015). China’s Dalian Wanda buys cinema chain Hoyts. Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/chinas-dalian-wanda-buys-cinema-chain-hoyts-20150603-ghfsur

Richards, S., & Carroll Harris, L. (2020). From the event to the everyday: Distributor-driven film festivals. Media International Australia, 1329878X2093847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20938479

Richards, S., & Carroll Harris, L. (2020). From the event to the everyday: Distributor-driven film festivals. Media International Australia, 1329878X2093847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20938479

ScreenHub. (2013). Palace Cinemas: Ben Zeccola becomes CEO. ArtsHub. https://www-artshub-com-au.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/news-article/company-announcements/film/screenhub/palace-cinemas-ben-zeccola-becomes-ceo-239628

Smith, A. (2014). Breaking the chain: The screen industry and disintermediation. Metro Magazine, 182, 104–107. https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=c5dabcf1-1d45-4d5e-867b-e630fe65245d%40sessionmgr4006

Stevens, K. (2016a). Australian film festivals: Audience, place, and exhibition culture. Palgrave Macmillan.

Stevens, K. (2016b). Enthusiastic amateurs: Australia’s film societies and the birth of audience-driven film festivals in post-war Melbourne. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 14(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400309.2015.1106689

Stevens, K. (2016c). From film weeks to festivals: Australia’s film festival boom in the 1980s. Studies in Australasian Cinema, 10(2), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2016.1198450

Sunada, M. (2012). Competition among movie theaters: An empirical investigation of the ‘Toho-Subaru’ antitrust case. Journal of Cultural Economics, 36(3), 179–206. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43549825

Tiley, D. (2019). Palace under pressure? Don’t panic! ArtsHub. https://www-artshub-com-au.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/news-article/news/film/david-tiley/palace-under-pressure-dont-panic-259128

Village Roadshow. (n.d.). Village Roadshow. https://villageroadshow.com.au/

von Rimscha, M. B. (2013). It’s not the economy, stupid! External effects on the supply and demand of cinema entertainment. Journal of Cultural Economics, 37(4), 433–455. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43549855

Wachowski, L., & Wachowski, L. (Dir.). (1999). The Matrix [film]. Warner Bros.