Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies (KSJCS)
[ Brdadcast Contents / Culture ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 62, No. 5, pp.253-292
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Oct 2018
Received 15 Jun 2018 Revised 28 Sep 2018 Accepted 04 Oct 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2018.62.5.008

영화 투자‧배급사의 사회연결망 중심성과 흥행성과에 대한 연구 : 2007-2017년 종단 분석을 통한 산업화 단계별 역학관계를 중심으로

노혜령** ; 황용석***
**건국대학교 문화콘텐츠·커뮤니케이션 박사과정 수료, 제1저자 hye.roh@gmail.com
***건국대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 교수, 교신저자 prohys@konkuk.ac.kr
The dynamic effect of network position on market performance : Korean film industry from 2007 to 2017
Hye R. Roh** ; Yongsuk Hwang***
**Ph. D. Candidate, Konkuk University hye.roh@gmail.com
***Professor, Konkuk University prohys@konkuk.ac.kr

초록

본 연구는 한국 영화 투자·배급사가 제작 생태계 사회연결망(social network)에서 차지하는 위치(중심성)가 흥행 실적에 어떤 영향을 미치는지를 2007-2017년까지 11년간 확률 효과 모형(random-effect model)을 통해 검증하고자 했다. 그 결과 영화 산업이 성숙기에 접어들기 전인 2007-2011년 기간에는 제작 생태계 핵심 액터들과 인맥이 좋을수록(높은 중심성) 흥행 성적에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 하지만 연간 한국영화 관람객이 1억 명을 넘어서 시장 정체기에 접어든 2012-2017년까지 산업화 성숙기에는 중심성 효과가 한계 체감으로 반전, 일정 수준 이상의 중심성은 효과가 감소하는 역 U자형 관계를 나타냈다. 이는 생태계 인적 자원이 고도화되지 못한 산업화 초기에는 중심 액터들과 긴밀히 연결된 투자·배급사들이 생태계 자원을 효율적으로 동원, 긍정적 성과를 내지만 성숙기에 접어들면 생태계 연결망에 과도하게 배태(embedded)되는 것이 ‘관성’과 ‘같은 사고의 반복’등으로 이어지면서 혁신적 성과 창출을 제한하는 요인으로 작용함을 함의한다. 본 연구는 영화 산업의 ‘네트워크 조직’특성을 반영, 한국영화의 산업화 단계에 따른 생태계와의 상호작용 관점에서 흥행 결정 요인을 종단적으로 분석한 첫 연구라는데 의의를 갖는다.

Abstract

Relationality in the business ecology is central to understanding how cultural industry operates. However, it has not yet received systematic investigation at the firm level. Building on social network theory and technique, we study the dynamic role of network position in shaping firms’capabilities to generate performance in two different market environments of cultural industry. We test our hypotheses within the Korean film industry over the period 2007–2017. The findings point to the existence of diminishing returns to network centrality. More specifically, we find that in the pre-matured Korean film market from 2007 to 2011, high centrality served as a strong positive determinants in generating box office performance by providing the focal actor with more access to potentially lucrative project opportunities and boosted mobilizing capabilities. In contrast, in the matured market form 2012 to 2017 when the audience growth reached plateau, diminishing returns on centrality occurred with the focal actor over-embedded in redundant network of repeated information and lacked diversity. This is one of the first studies to take network perspective on Korean film business ecology, analysing with panel data of film studios. The academic and practical contribution as well as implication of the study are discussed.

Keywords:

Korean film industry, network centrality, panel analysis, business ecology, multi-sided market

키워드:

영화 산업, 네트워크 중심성, 패널 분석, 양면 시장, 비즈니스 생태계

Acknowledgments

본 논문은 2014년도 건국대학교 KU학술연구비 지원을 받았음. 또한 한국언론학회 2018 봄철 정기학술대회 발표문을 바탕으로 발전시킨 것임.

References

  • 곽기영 (2014). <소셜 네트워크 분석>. 서울: 청람.
  • 권선주 (2014). 영화 흥행성과의 분석과 예측. <문화경제연구>, 17권 1호, 35-55.
  • 김미현 (2012). 한국영화 자본조달 구조와 유형에 대한 연구. <영화연구>, 51권, 39-62.
  • 김상호·한진만 (2014). 한국 영화의 흥행성과 결정요인 분석. <사회과학연구>, 53권 1호, 191-214.
  • 김성환·김민철·이재영·김남심·강유리·김태현 (2008). 양면시장 (two-sided market) 이론에 따른 방송통신 서비스 정책 이슈 연구. <연구보고>, 2008권 11호, 1-153.
  • 김은미 (2003). 한국 영화의 흥행 결정 요인에 관한 연구. <한국언론학보>, 47권 2호, 190-220.
  • 김휴종 (2004). 한국 영화산업과 독과점 이슈. <문화경제연구>, 7권 2호, 63-84.
  • 박승현·정완규 (2009). 한국 영화시장의 흥행결정 요인에 관한 연구. <언론과학연구>, 9권 4호, 243-276.
  • 연합뉴스 (2018, 4, 22). 현대硏 “서비스업 육성으로 ‘고용없는 성장’ 대응해야”. URL: http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2018/04/21/0200000000AKR20180421038400002.HTML?input=1195m
  • 영화진흥위원회 (2016). 영화산업의 경쟁력과 경제적 파급 효과 연구 보고서. URL: http://www.kofic.or.kr/kofic/business/rsch/findPolicyDetail.do?policyNo=2327
  • 이양환·장병희·박경우 (2007). 국가 간 영화 흥행요인 비교를 위한 탐색적 연구. <언론과학연구>, 7권 1호, 185-222.
  • 임성준·이근석 (2003, 4월). <한국영화산업에 있어서 지식기반자원이 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 실증적연구>. <한국전략경영학회 학술대회발표논문집>, 183-210.
  • 임효창 (2016, 6, 27). 서비스산업 육성 없이 일자리 없다. <한국경제신문>, A34면.
  • 최병호·이근재 (2013). 영화산업에서 배급사와 상영관의 관계가 시장성과에 미치는 영향. <경제연구>, 31권, 1-27.
  • Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (1991). Role as resource in the Hollywood film industry. American Journal of Sociology, 97(2), 279-309. [https://doi.org/10.1086/229780]
  • Bakker, G. (2005). The decline and fall of the European film industry: sunk costs, market size, and market structure, 1890–1927. The Economic History Review, 58(2), 310-351. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2005.00306.x]
  • Balakrishnan, S., & Wernerfelt, B. (1986). Technical change, competition and vertical integration. Strategic Management Journal, 7(4), 347-359. [https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250070405]
  • Baltagi, B. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data. 3rd edition, Chichester, West Sussex : John Wiley & Sons.
  • Barley, S. R., Freeman, J., & Hybels, R. C. (1992). Strategic alliances in commercial biotechnology. Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action, 31, 1-347
  • Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of mathematical sociology, 2(1), 113-120. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1972.9989806]
  • Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American journal of sociology, 92(5), 1170-1182. [https://doi.org/10.1086/228631]
  • Bonacich, P. (2007). Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social networks, 29(4), 555-564. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.04.002]
  • Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social networks, 27(1), 55-71. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008]
  • Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (2006). A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Social networks, 28(4), 466-484. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2005.11.005]
  • Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (1997). Network analysis of 2-mode data. Social networks, 19(3), 243-269. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(96)00301-2]
  • Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19(6), 824-844. [https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0350]
  • Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1989). Lead time in automobile product development explaining the Japanese advantage. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6(1), 25-58. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0923-4748(89)90013-1]
  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of sociology, 94, S95-S120. [https://doi.org/10.1086/228943]
  • Coleman, J., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1957). The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry, 20(4), 253-270. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2785979]
  • Croissant, Y., & Millo, G. (2008). Panel data econometrics in R: The plm package. Journal of statistical software, 27(2), 1-43. [https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v027.i02]
  • DiMaggio, P. (2011). Cultural networks. In Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 286-310). London : Sage Publications. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294413.n20]
  • Dodds, P. S., Muhamad, R., & Watts, D. J. (2003). An experimental study of search in global social networks. science, 301(5634), 827-829. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1081058]
  • Faulkner, R. R., & Anderson, A. B. (1987). Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American journal of sociology, 92(4), 879-909. [https://doi.org/10.1086/228586]
  • Ferriani, S., Cattani, G., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2009). The relational antecedents of project-entrepreneurship: Network centrality, team composition and project performance. Research Policy, 38(10), 1545-1558. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.001]
  • Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215-239. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7]
  • Frees, E. W. (2004). Longitudinal and panel data: analysis and applications in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790928]
  • Goldman, W. (1985). Adventures in the Screen Trade: A Personal View of Hollywood and Screenwriting, 1983. NY: Warner Books.
  • Granovetter, M. (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. [https://doi.org/10.1086/225469]
  • Helfat, C. E., & Teece, D. J. (1987). Vertical integration and risk reduction. JL Econ. & Org., 3, 47.
  • Hesse, R. B. (2007). Two-sided platform markets and the application of the traditional antitrust analytical framework. Competition Policy International, 3, 191-195
  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
  • Ibert, O. (2004). Projects and firms as discordant complements: organisational learning in the Munich software ecology. Research Policy, 33(10), 1529-1546. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.08.010]
  • Imai, K., Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1985). Managing the new production development. The Unease Alliance, HBS Press, Boston.
  • Jones, C. (2001). Co-evolution of entrepreneurial careers, institutional rules and competitive dynamics in American film, 1895-1920. Organization Studies, 22(6), 911-944. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601226002]
  • Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of management review, 22(4), 911-945. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022109]
  • Lampel, J., & Shamsie, J. (2003). Capabilities in motion: New organizational forms and the reshaping of the Hollywood movie industry. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2189-2210. [https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00417.x]
  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 14(1), 319-33. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.14.1.319]
  • Litman, B. R. (1983). Predicting success of theatrical movies: An empirical study. The Journal of Popular Culture, 16(4), 159-175. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3840.1983.1604_159.x]
  • Litman, B. R., & Kohl, L. S. (1989). Predicting financial success of motion pictures: The'80s experience. Journal of Media Economics, 2(2), 35-50. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08997768909358184]
  • Mariotti, S., & Cainarca, G. C. (1986). The evolution of transaction governance in the tectile-clothing industry. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 7(4), 351-374. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(86)90011-9]
  • Newman, M. E., Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (2002). Random graph models of social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl 1), 2566-2572. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.012582999]
  • Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economyand How to Make Them Work for You. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
  • Peterson, R. A., & Berger, D. G. (1971). Entrepreneurship in organizations: Evidence from the popular music industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 97-106 [https://doi.org/10.2307/2391293]
  • Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The second industrial divide. New York, 19.
  • Powell, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
  • Powell, W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American journal of sociology, 110(4), 1132-1205. [https://doi.org/10.1086/421508]
  • Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two‐sided markets. Journal of the european economic association, 1(4), 990-1029. [https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212]
  • Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two‐sided markets: a progress report. The RAND journal of economics, 37(3), 645-667. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x]
  • Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice. [https://doi.org/10.1037/e597322010-001]
  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of management review, 25(1), 217-226 [https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611]
  • Silver, J. D. (2007). Hollywood's dominance of the movie industry: how did it arise and how has it been maintained? Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology.
  • Stuart, T. E., & Sorenson, O. (2005). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Handbook of entrepreneurship research, 233-252. [https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23622-8_11]
  • Tortoriello, M., McEvily, B., & Krackhardt, D. (2014). Being a catalyst of innovation: The role of knowledge diversity and network closure. Organization Science, 26(2), 423-438. [https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0942]
  • Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American sociological review, 674-698. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2096399]
  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative science quarterly, 35-67. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808]
  • Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American journal of sociology, 111(2), 447-504. [https://doi.org/10.1086/432782]
  • Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig Jr, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American sociological review, 322-338. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2094477]
  • Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, 3(1), 119-138.
  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications .Vol. 8, Cambridge, London : Cambridge university press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478]
  • Whitley, R. (2006). Project-based firms: new organizational form or variations on a theme?. Industrial and corporate change, 15(1), 77-99. [https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtj003]
  • Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. The journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261. [https://doi.org/10.1086/466942]
  • Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative science quarterly, 269-296. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2393356]
  • Wyatt, J. (1991). High concept, product differentiation, and the contemporary US film industry. Current research in film: Audiences, economics and law, 5, 86-105.
  • Zeileis, A. (2004). Econometric computing with HC and HAC covariance matrix estimators[On-Line]. Research Report Series, Department of Statistics and Mathematics, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/sandwich/vignettes/sandwich.pdf, . [https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v011.i10]