Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDavis Laurence Modified over 9 years ago
1
United States vs. Paramount Inc. By Alex Fisher & Paul Wagner
2
Vertical Integration: Movie Industry PRODUCERS DISTRIBUTORS EXHIBITORS
3
1933 Famous Players- Lasky Corporation acquires Bosworth and Paramount 1921 April 1928193519161927 FTC files Lasky-complaint Cease order to stop block booking DOJ files antitrust case 1930 Supreme Court guilty verdict Block booking allowed via National Industry Recovery Act Studies mostly recovered Summary
4
Jan 1946 Variety piece & DOJ case: 8 studies 25 affiliates 132 Execs 1939 June 1942194619381940 Gone With The Wind, Wizard of OZ, Wurthering Heights Consent decree: block booking regulated small 3 left out Consent decree expiration: all 8 must be compliant Oct 1945 8 Back in Court Movie Admission Peak Guilty verdict: block booking, theatre pooling eliminated Big 5 allowed theatres Summary
5
Jan 1946 Feb-May 1948 Nov 19481954 RKO first to sign divorce agreement Feb 1949 Paramount divests to focus on TV MGM divests Guilty verdict: block booking, theatre pooling eliminated Big 5 allowed theatres Supreme Court Appeal Supreme Court: - Ban block booking - Require theatre divestiture - offered 2 nd consent decree 1951 Fox and Warner divests Summary
6
Questions?
7
Economics Big 8 17% Independent Theatre Owners SIMPP Relevant market Pop. > 100,000 70% have major affiliation 91% have independent competition Pop. = 25,000 – 100,000 5 majors have interest in 60% Pop. < 25,000 1 of 5 has 100% affiliation No nationwide competition 83%
8
Economics Restraints of Trade Theatre pooling Vertical and Horizontal Agreement Price fixing Minimum admission price Rental Income = % of revenue from screening Block booking Less consumer welfare: less output and increased prices
9
Outcome 1) Exhibitor pricing 2) Theatre-by-theatre and movie-by-movie licensing 3) No Vertical Integration: Divestiture of Theatres 4) No joint theatre ownership unless < 5%
10
Post Mortem Failures No evidence for explicit collusion Burden of enforcing competitive bidding Consumer welfare loss Independents harmed Inputs decrease: Studio exits increase and entries decrease Output decreases Quality is stagnant till 1970’s
11
Reduced competition Divestiture unnecessary Today: Independents still need major distributers Antitrust economics infancy Little empirical analysis Conclusion USD (adj. for inflation)
12
Questions?
13
Works Cited Slide 1: 1) http://www.filmforum.org/films/paramount.htm 2) http://www.justice.gov/dag/pubdoc/deathpenaltyst udy.htm
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.