Study: Movie Critics Speak Even When They Don't Utter a Word

Research finds that many film critics, faced with far too many movies to write about, tend to avoid writing reviews of bad films they’ve seen

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Durham, N.C. -- As Oscar season gets into full swing, new research indicates that what movie critics don’t say about a film appears to matter as much as what they do say.

The research, conducted by marketing professor Wagner Kamakura of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, Suman Basuroy, assistant professor of marketing at Florida Atlantic University, and Peter Boatwright, associate professor of marketing at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business, examines the meaning of silence by professional film critics.

It finds that many film critics, faced with far too many movies to write about, tend to avoid writing reviews of bad films that they’ve seen. At the same time, a few critics, faced with the same overwhelming choice, tend to avoid reviewing good movies that they’ve watched.

As a result, moviegoers might infer the likely opinions of their favorite reviewers, even when those critics don’t actually write about a movie. The study will appear in the June 2006 issue of the journal Quantitative Marketing & Economics.

"Our results show that critic silence is actually quite informative about movies, a valuable source of relevant information that should not be overlooked," the authors wrote. "Our model demonstrates that the fact that an expert is silent about a product may imply a positive or a negative review, depending on the expert."

The researchers studied what 46 top critics wrote about 466 movies released between December 1997 and March 2001. Using information drawn from Variety magazine, Hollywood’s leading trade publication, the authors sorted the critics’ opinions into three categories -- pro, con and neutral -- and assigned points for each type of rating.

Controlling for such factors as an individual reviewer’s biases, they then used a statistical model to develop a composite scale of "movie acclaim," a consensus measure of movie quality.

In developing their scale, the researchers found that most critics passed on films that generally fell within the neutral range. But 13 of the 46 critics in the study showed a greater tendency to be silent about movies that their colleagues disliked. On the other hand, three critics -- Hazel-Dawn Dumpert of LA Weekly; Elvis Mitchell, formerly of The New York Times, and Susan Wloszczyna of USA Today -- seemed more likely to pass on films that won a "thumbs-up" from other reviewers.

"Our results showed that silence has a large impact on the precision of predictions, especially for highly acclaimed movies," the authors wrote. "Simply put, silence allows one to more confidently identify those movies that are of the highest acclaim."

The study also identifies the critics who are most informative about different types of films. Some reviewers divulge more about potential Oscar winners, while other critics reveal more about films with less appeal.
For instance, the researchers found that critics Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, Jack Mathews of the New York Daily News, Mark Caro of the Chicago Tribune and Susan Wloszczyna of USA Today provide the most information about poorer movies. At the other end of the spectrum, David Ansen of Newsweek, Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, Manohla Dargis of The New York Times, J. Hoberman of the Village Voice and Mike Clark of USA Today supply the most information about the finer flicks.

The authors contend that the same kind of consensus quality scale could cover other "experience" products for which consumers rely heavily on expert advice, including financial investments, restaurants, theaters, books, wines and music. For example, the authors envision such a scale to rate stock picks by financial analysts and to detect general biases in their choices.

"The approach outlined in this paper extends beyond movies to other product categories," the authors wrote. "The method can be applied to any situation where multiple experts provide opinions on the same products/services."

In a follow-up study, the researchers are now exploring the relationship between a movie’s critical acclaim and its box office sales. Among other things, they aim to pinpoint the critics who have the biggest impact on ticket sales.

On the other hand, three critics -- Hazel-Dawn Dumpert of LA Weekly; Elvis Mitchell, formerly of The New York Times, and Susan Wloszczyna of USA Today -- seemed more likely to pass on films that won a "thumbs-up" from other reviewers.


At the other end of the spectrum, David Ansen of Newsweek, Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, Manohla Dargis of The New York Times, J. Hoberman of the Village Voice and Mike Clark of USA Today supply the most information about the finer flicks.