Advertisement

Digital Transformation and Business Model Innovation in the Film Industry: The Case of Movieday.it

  • Adriano SolidoroEmail author
  • Gianluigi Viscusi
Chapter

Abstract

Digital technologies are enabling the transformation of the established market boundaries and business models of the cinema industry, bringing opportunities for a reconfiguration of the conceptual framework of movie content distribution through movie theatres, as well as of the concept of the movie theatre as traditional projection space and as institutional site. This requires to sector organizations to negotiate new agreements related to theatrical distribution and to explore alternative ways of operating. The purpose of this chapter is to investigate existing opportunities of transformation for the theatrical distribution value chain in an era in which the Internet and social media change the conventional cycle of production, distribution and consumption, re-defining the function of intermediaries, gatekeepers and experts. The chapter analyses the case of Movieday.it, a platform designed to bridge the gap between content and theatrical distribution through audience engagement, with the aim to balance supply and demand.

References

  1. Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–375.Google Scholar
  2. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  4. Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53.Google Scholar
  5. Cinetel. (2017). Annuario Cinetel. https://www.cinetel.it/.
  6. DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379–389.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies, A., & Wistreich, N. (2007). The film finance handbook, new global edition. London: Netribution.Google Scholar
  8. Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2016). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation. Journal of Management, 43(1), 200–227.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316675927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press. Google Scholar
  11. Goodell, G. (1998). Independent feature film production. New York, NY: St. Martins Griffin.Google Scholar
  12. Gubbins, M. (2012). Digital revolution: The active audience. Retrieved August 14, 2017, from http://film-junction.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/DigitalRevolution2012_Final.pdf.
  13. Gubbins, M. (2014). Audience in the mind. Cine-Regio. Retrieved from https://www.cineregio.org/dyn/files/pdf_download_items/16-file/CineRegio_AudienceInTheMind_Executive%20Summary%20160327.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2019.
  14. Hewson, C. (2008). Internet-mediated research as an emergent method and its potential role in facilitating mixed methods research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 543–570). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jenkins H., Ito, M., & Boyd D. (2016). Participatory culture in a networked era: A conversation on youth, learning, commerce, and politics. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kallinikos, J. (2006). The consequences of information—Institutional implications of technological change. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  17. Kallinikos, J. (2012). Form, function, and matter: Crossing the border of materiality. In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing—Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 67–87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00177.x.
  22. Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business model research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73–104.  https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0072.
  23. Massa, L., Viscusi, G., & Tucci, C. (2018). Business models and complexity. Journal of Business Models, 6(1), 59–71.  https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jbm.v6i1.2579.
  24. Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business and Information Systems Engineering (BISE), 57(5), 339–343.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 563–588.  https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069201300403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Crowd-funding: Transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal of Service Management, 4(22), 443–470.Google Scholar
  27. Rayport, J., & Sviokla, J. (1995, November/December). Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business Review, 73(6), 75–85. Google Scholar
  28. Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Viscusi, G., & Tucci, C. (2018). Three’s a crowd? In C. Tucci, A. Afuah, & G. Viscusi (Eds.), Creating and capturing value through crowdsourcing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  31. Vogel, H. (2007). Entertainment industry economics—A guide for financial analysis (7th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vorbach, S., Wipfler, H., & Schimpf, S. (2017). Business model innovation vs. business model inertia: The role of disruptive technologies. BHM Berg- Und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte, 162(9), 382–385.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-017-0671-y.
  33. Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations (1st ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 216–226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2017). Business model innovation: How to create value in a digital world. GfK Marketing Intelligence Review, 9(1), 18–23.  https://doi.org/10.1515/gfkmir-2017-0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università Di Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations