So, if ticket prices vary from time to time and from theater to theater, why measure movie success in terms of money? The probable reason why major studios still use nominal incomes is because they can be used to appeal to the broader audience. Regular viewers, like us, don't give much thought to the figures. This is part of the marketing strategy used by studios to induce the average viewer to assume that a film is both popular and good. A strategy that focuses on how marketing influences consumer behavior and how a trend may influence individuals to do things.
There is an alternate quantitative method that calculates the number of dollars spent by the studio to sell one ticket. This measure is quantified by dividing the production cost of the film by the number of tickets sold. Why would a major studio not want to utilize this parameter? Dollars spent per ticket sold is a little difficult for the average viewer to grasp. Regular viewers, once again, seem uninterested in delving into the numbers. Instead, they simply want to be satisfied with the film they are about to watch.
The Better Measure for Audiences
It's not about how popular a film is, which can be influenced by factors like starpower, iconic characters, or even genre; it's about how many people who went to see the film actually enjoyed it. The emotional responses that a movie evokes are often represented in the form of critic reviews and audience ratings. Reviews and audience scores can be tracked from credible movie review sites such as Rotten Tomatoes.Â
These reviews utilize some sort of scoring metric in the end. However, they are still categorized as qualitative data since they are based on descriptive values rather than numerical numbers. Review sites, such as Rotten Tomatoes, use rigorous methods, which is an approach similar to research data collecting. They gathered the opinions of a few hundred critics who have met a series of criteria set by Rotten Tomatoes for the review of every film.
This provides the viewers with high-quality remarks that they may use to affirm the quality and success of a film. However, it appears that not everyone agrees with the critics' assessments. That is to say, reviews are very subjective, and they are dependent on characteristics that are neither intangible nor constant, as are most economic variables.
Let's take a peek at Zack Snyder's blockbuster Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, one of the most popular modern films that has sparked disagreement among critics and fans. The movie got a rating of just 29 percent on review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes. But this film appears to be so divisive that practically the whole DC fanbase argued against these critics. The audience score was 63 percent, with over 100.000 individuals evaluating it, which is rather low for a blockbuster film and demonstrates how qualitative metrics like this are prone to subjectivity.
But what if subjectivity is the key to determining cinematic success? Film is an art form, hence the criteria by which we determine film success should be more precisely expressed in subjective terms. In economic principles, you can't quantify the viewer's utility by using income figures that are affected by non-relevant variables such as the actor or actress' popularity.
Looking just at people's reviews is better than looking solely at gross box office. The crucial point here is that if the majority of people think a film is good, it already reflects the most relevant variable, which is people's honest criticism of a film. Consider the difference between Thor: Ragnarok and Batman v Superman. Thor: Ragnarok grossed US$854 million, falling shy of Batman V Superman's US$872.Â
Thor: Ragnarok, on the other hand, has a 93 percent critic rating and an 87 percent audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to Batman V Superman's 29 percent and 63 percent, respectively. So, even while Batman V Superman outperforms Thor: Ragnarok in terms of total revenue and viewers, the average audience enjoyed and loved Thor Ragnarok much more.
What About the Perspectives of Major Studios?Â
