Roger Ebert vs. John Doe: An Examination of the Difference in Media Reviews
Grade Level at Time of Presentation
Senior
Major
Economics
Minor
Chinese Studies
Institution
Murray State University
KY House District #
6
KY Senate District #
2
Faculty Advisor/ Mentor
Dr. David Eaton
Department
Economics
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to examine the variation in critic and audience reviews of films and determine the cause of this variation. When reviewing a film, the ratings of critics and audience members often differ, regardless of whether they are positive or negative. This difference may arise from the unique role critics possess in this market as agents and the incentives they face. As agents of the film industry, critics have expert knowledge concerning films that audience members do not possess and therefore, they review films with a different evaluative framework than audience members. Critics may look at a film’s composition or cinematography for their review, while an audience member may simply consider their own enjoyment. The hypothesis of this paper is that critics view media with different objectives than audience members and as such, their reviews may be focused on criteria other than the public’s focus. This hypothesis will be tested through the use of a regression of related explanatory variables. The importance of this issue lies more in how it applies to other markets. Similar impacts have been studied in markets ranging from real estate to auto repair to medicine. This research will lead to a better understanding of the economic impact of different information processing and use by experts and non-experts.
Roger Ebert vs. John Doe: An Examination of the Difference in Media Reviews
The purpose of this research is to examine the variation in critic and audience reviews of films and determine the cause of this variation. When reviewing a film, the ratings of critics and audience members often differ, regardless of whether they are positive or negative. This difference may arise from the unique role critics possess in this market as agents and the incentives they face. As agents of the film industry, critics have expert knowledge concerning films that audience members do not possess and therefore, they review films with a different evaluative framework than audience members. Critics may look at a film’s composition or cinematography for their review, while an audience member may simply consider their own enjoyment. The hypothesis of this paper is that critics view media with different objectives than audience members and as such, their reviews may be focused on criteria other than the public’s focus. This hypothesis will be tested through the use of a regression of related explanatory variables. The importance of this issue lies more in how it applies to other markets. Similar impacts have been studied in markets ranging from real estate to auto repair to medicine. This research will lead to a better understanding of the economic impact of different information processing and use by experts and non-experts.