4  Strategies as patterns and positions

Norwegian distributors after 2008

Show the code 
#load packages
library(tidyverse)
library(plotly)
library(rrefine)
library(colorspace)
library(ggrepel)
library(viridis)
library(gt)

#get data
filmweb_data_scrape = refine_export(project.name = "filmweb_film_data")
filmweb_yearly_admissions = refine_export(project.name = "filmweb_yearly_admissions")
filmweb_data_2008_2018 = refine_export(project.name = "filmweb_2008_2018")
distributors = refine_export(project.name = "distributors")
patterns_positions_table = refine_export(project.name="patterns_positions_table")

filmweb_data_scrape = filmweb_data_scrape [,c("filmweb_id", "production_year", "premiere_as_date", "production_country","registered_year","premiere_year","distributor")]
filmweb_data_2008_2018 =filmweb_data_2008_2018 [,c("filmweb_id", "production_year", "premiere_as_date", "production_country","registered_year","premiere_year")]

# join datasets
filmweb_data = left_join(filmweb_data_scrape,filmweb_data_2008_2018, join_by(filmweb_id))

# combine data sets to covver missing data
filmweb_data = filmweb_data %>% 
  mutate (production_year = coalesce(production_year.x, production_year.y)) %>% 
  mutate (production_country = coalesce(production_country.x, production_country.y)) %>% 
  mutate (premiere_as_date = coalesce(premiere_as_date.x, premiere_as_date.y)) %>% 
  mutate (premiere_year = coalesce(premiere_year.x, premiere_year.y)) %>% 
  mutate (registered_year = coalesce(registered_year.x, registered_year.y))

#replace NA values in production year column with premiere year and NA values in premiere year with production year  
filmweb_data = filmweb_data %>% 
  mutate(premiere_year = coalesce(filmweb_data$premiere_year, filmweb_data$production_year)) %>% 
  mutate (production_year = coalesce(filmweb_data$production_year, filmweb_data$premiere_year))

filmweb_data = filmweb_data %>% 
  mutate(premiere_year = coalesce(filmweb_data$premiere_year, filmweb_data$registered_year)) %>% 
  mutate (production_year = coalesce(filmweb_data$production_year, filmweb_data$registered_year))


# get only consolidated columns
filmweb_data = filmweb_data [,c(1,12:16)]

# add a distributor_id column
filmweb_yearly_admissions = filmweb_yearly_admissions %>% 
  mutate(distributor_id = str_sub(filmweb_id,1,3))
filmweb_data_scrape = filmweb_data_scrape %>% 
  mutate(distributor_id = str_sub(filmweb_id,1,3))

#add premiere_year column 
filmweb_data = filmweb_data %>% 
  mutate(premiere_year.x = format(premiere_as_date, format="%Y"))
  
# add a domestic TRUE/FALSE for national and maj-co-prod and a min co-prod true/false for min co-prod
filmweb_data = filmweb_data %>% 
  mutate(domestic = ifelse(grepl("^Norge",production_country),TRUE, FALSE)) %>% 
  mutate(min_co_prod = ifelse(grepl(", Norge",production_country),TRUE, FALSE))

# Add filmweb-data to yearly admissions
filmweb_yearly_admissions = left_join(filmweb_yearly_admissions,filmweb_data)

# add a premiere TRUE/FALSE to yearly admissions
filmweb_yearly_admissions = filmweb_yearly_admissions %>%
  mutate(premiere = ifelse(year == premiere_year, TRUE, FALSE))


filmweb_data_scrape = filmweb_data_scrape %>% 
  mutate(distributor_id = str_sub(filmweb_id,1,3))

# summarise by distributor
distributor_yearly = filmweb_yearly_admissions %>%
  group_by(distributor_id, year) %>%
  summarise(admissions = sum(admissions_year), domestic_admissions = sum(admissions_year [grepl("^Norge",production_country)]), min_co_prod_admissions = sum(admissions_year [grepl(", Norge",production_country)]), domestic_premieres = sum(domestic[premiere == TRUE]), premieres = sum(premiere == TRUE), min_co_premieres = sum(min_co_prod[premiere == TRUE]), domestic_share = sum(admissions_year [grepl("^Norge",production_country)])/sum(admissions_year))

# add a column true false if active in any year (as in any premieres)
distributor_yearly= distributor_yearly %>% 
  mutate(active = ifelse(premieres > 0, TRUE, FALSE))

# get averages for 2008 to 2018 period
distributor_average_2008_2018 = distributor_yearly %>% 
  filter(year < 2019, year > 2007, premieres >1) %>% 
  filter(active == TRUE) %>% 
  group_by(distributor_id) %>% 
  summarise(admissions = mean(admissions),domestic_admissions = mean(domestic_admissions), mean(min_co_prod_admissions), domestic_premieres = mean(domestic_premieres), premieres = mean(premieres), min_co_premieres = mean(min_co_premieres), domestic_share = mean(domestic_share)) %>% 
  na.omit()

# add distributor names
distributor_average_2008_2018 = left_join(distributor_average_2008_2018,distributors)

distributor_average_2008_2018 = na.omit(distributor_average_2008_2018)

distributor_average_2008_2012 = distributor_yearly %>% 
  filter(year < 2013, year > 2007) %>% 
  filter(active == TRUE) %>% 
  group_by(distributor_id) %>% 
  summarise(admissions = mean(admissions),domestic_admissions = mean(domestic_admissions), mean(min_co_prod_admissions), domestic_premieres = mean(domestic_premieres), premieres = mean(premieres), min_co_premieres = mean(min_co_premieres), domestic_share = mean(domestic_share))

distributor_average_2013_2018 = distributor_yearly %>% 
  filter(year < 2019, year > 2012) %>% 
  filter(active == TRUE) %>% 
  group_by(distributor_id) %>% 
  summarise(admissions = mean(admissions),domestic_admissions = mean(domestic_admissions), mean(min_co_prod_admissions), domestic_premieres = mean(domestic_premieres), premieres = mean(premieres), min_co_premieres = mean(min_co_premieres), domestic_share = mean(domestic_share))

distributor_average_2013_2018 = distributor_average_2013_2018 %>% 
  mutate(period = "2013-2018")

distributor_average_2008_2012 = distributor_average_2008_2012 %>% 
  mutate(period = "2008_2012")

distributor_changes = bind_rows(distributor_average_2008_2012,distributor_average_2013_2018)

distributor_changes = left_join(distributor_changes,distributors)

distributor_changes = na.omit(distributor_changes)

corporate_strategies = read_csv2("Resource intensity;Local dependence;Parent company;Acquisition enabling strategies;Release enabling strategies;Marketing enabling strategies
High;Foreign-dominated;Hollywood studio;Mainly foreign movies through vertical integration. Only very rarely release local movies.;All are vertically integrated with SVOD services;Marketing expenses covered by parent company
High;Foreign-led;Scandinavian conglomerate;Foreign movies from several output and first look deals, including Hollywood majors. Some foreign movies from vertically integrated companies. Local movies from vertically integrated companies and independent producers.;Some output deals;Marketing expenses for some foreign titles covered by foreign studio
High;Local-led;Scandinavian conglomerate;Foreign movies from first look deals, output deals with minor Hollywood studios and vertically integrated companies. Local movies from vertically integrated companies and independent producers.;Output deals with several streaming services, runs bundled SVOD platform. Vertical integration with cinema chain;Marketing expenses for some foreign titles covered by foreign studio. Vertical integration with ticket website, cinema advertising agency, and cinema chain used in marketing
Low;Foreign-led;Long term owners with film industry interests;Some long-term relationships with local production companies. Some local minority co-productions through vertical integrations;Regular co-operation with home entertainment specialists;
Low;Local-dominated;Long term owners with film industry interests;Some long-term relationships with local production companies. Some local minority co-productions through vertical integrations;Some have regular co-operation with home entertainment specialists and other distributors;
Low;Foreign-dominated;Often independent;Some long-term relationships with local production companies. Some local minority co-productions through vertical integrations;Some have regular co-operation with home entertainment specialists and other distributors;")


acquistion_strategies = read_csv2("Resource intensity;Local dependence;Investment level;Release frequency;Local titles based on known or original stories;Countries of origin;Genres
High;Foreign-dominated;High;Very high;Very rarely release local titles, all have been based on known content;Almost all foreign titles from the USA;No clear preference
High;Foreign-led;High. Hollywood output deals and somewhat expensive local titles;Very high;Most local titles based on known stories;Most foreign titles from the USA, some European titles;No clear preference
High;Local-led;High, somewhat expensive output deals and expensive local titles;High;Local titles far often based on known than original stories;Most foreign titles from the USA, some European and Nordic titles;No clear preference
Low;Foreign-led;High compared to other low-resource distributors. Local titles more expensive than foreign. Most local titles have relatively low budgets, but occasionally release moderately expensive local titles;Usually somewhat high;Local titles far more often based on original than known stories. Local films based on known stories can still have a substantial share of admissions;Most foreign titles from the USA, some European, a few Nordic, and occasionally other countries;No clear preference
Low;Local-dominated;Low, local titles are generally more expensive than foreign;Low;Local titles far more often based on original stories than known.;No or few foreign titles outside of co-productions. Most foreign films are Nordic or European, occasionally other countries.;Often show genre preference
Low;Foreign-dominated;Low, local titles are few and often very low budget;Varies, can be high;Local titles far more often based on original stories than known.;Few titles from the USA, otherwise it varies from distributor to distributor;Often strong genre preference")

cinema_release_strategies = read_csv2("Resource intensity;Local dependence;Marketing budget;Preferred dates
High;Foreign-dominated;High;Foreign titles throughout the year
High;Foreign-led;High;Foreign titles throughout the year. Some local tiles in spring, most local titles in autumn. Occasionally hold attractive dates like December 25
High;Local-led;High;Most foreign titles in spring. Some local titles in spring, most in the autumn. Often hold attractive dates like the first weekend in November or December 25
Low;Foreign-led;Can be relatively high for local titles;Foreign titles throughout the year except December. Local titles mostly in spring or early autumn.
Low;Local-dominated;Relatively low;Few releases and no clear preference
Low;Foreign-dominated;Relatively low;No clear preference")

home_entertainment_strategies = read_csv2("Resource intensity;Local dependence;In-house or external home ent. release;Window length;Window structure;Release formats;Pricing;Streaming
High;Foreign-led;In-house;Relatively short;Regular;All titles released digital and physical. Most on Blu-ray, but not always;Active;All 2019 titles on SVOD about a year after theatrical, most free-to-air/stream about two years after theatrical. Some older titles on global streaming services, more on Scandinavian and local services.
High;Local-led;In-house;Relatively short;Regular;All titles released digital and physical. Most on Blu-ray, but not always;Active;All 2019 titles on SVOD about a year after theatrical, most on free-to-air/stream two years after theatrical. Highest share of older titles on global streaming services, some titles on Scandinavian and local services.
Low;Foreign-led;In-house or external. More often in-house on digital releases;Relatively long;Often irregular;All titles released on digital formats. Most on DVD, rarely on Blu-ray;Passive;All 2019 titles had free-to-air/stream as first streaming window, about 18 months after theatrical release. No older titles on global streaming services, a few on Scandinavian streaming services
Low;Local-dominated;In-house or external. More often in-house on digital releases;Relatively long;Often irregular;All titles released on digital formats. Most on DVD, rarely on Blu-ray;Passive;2019 title had free-to-air/stream as first streaming window. One distributor had a significant share of titles on streaming services, the other had none.
Low;Foreign-dominated;In-house or external. More often in-house on digital releases;Can be short, but more often long;Often irregular;Not all titles get home entertainment release. Most titles released on digital formats and on DVD, rarely on Blu-ray. Specialist release Blu-ray more often;Passive;One 2019 title on SVOD after about a year. Several on free-to-air/stream, from three months to two years after theatrical release. Very few older titles on Scandinavian streaming services, most titles not streaming at all.")

home_ent_prominence = read_csv2("Position;2019 titles on iTunes;Catalogue titles
          Market lead;Generally high prominence, especially children's titles. Artistic title had moderate prominence;High prominence
Local content lead;All titles have high prominence, especially children's titles.;Very high prominence
          Independent;Most 2019 titles had low or no prominence;Varied from moderate to none
          Specialist;Some 2019 titles had moderate prominence, others none;None or very low")

This chapter uses historical and observational data to examine the strategies of Norwegian film distributors since 2008. The historical data is, with some exception detailed later, from the period 2008 to 2018 and the observational data is based on Norwegian movies released in 2019. An extensive analysis of this data is found in the appendix.

After having divided the areas where strategic decisions were made into four main groups, corporate, acquisitions, cinema release and home entertainment release, I began examining behaviour in these areas for “consistency in behavior, whether or not intended” (Mintzberg 1987, 12) according to Mintzberg’s definition of pattern.

While I found many patterns of consistent behaviour within these areas, almost all of these minor patterns confirmed to an overreaching pattern of resource intensity. As patterns the strategies of Norwegian film distributors can therefore be categorised as high-resource strategies or low-resource strategies. There is a significant gap between these strategies, with little or no middle ground.

In one respect, however, the strategies of Norwegian distributors did not conform to the resource intensity pattern. Both high- and low-resource distributors showed varying degree of dependence on local titles. In this pattern I have categorised the strategies as foreign-dominated, foreign-led, local-led and local-dominated. While the degree of local dependence could also be broadly categorised, these strategies are far more granular.

I further analysed the data looking for “any viable position, whether or not directly competitive” (Mintzberg 1987, 15). Using Mintzberg’s definition of strategy as position, “strategy becomes a ‘niche’” (1987, 15). Based on the data, I find that the strategies of Norwegian distributors can described as four (more or less) viable positions, market lead, local content lead, independent and specialist.

Show the code 
na.omit(patterns_positions_table) %>% 
  gt(rowname_col = "distributor") %>% 
   cols_label(
    distributor = "Distributor",
    resource_intensity = "Resource Intensity",
    local_dependence = "Local Dependence",
    position = "Position") %>% 
    tab_footnote(
    footnote = "Norsk Filmdistribusjon was founded in 1990, but was merged into Sandrew Metronme later. In 2011 the company was disbanded and Norsk Filmdistribusjon reverted to its original name. However, there is significant difference in the strategies of the companies and I have therefore kept them separate",
    locations = cells_stub(rows = c("Sandrew Metronome","Norsk Filmdistribusjon"))) %>%
  opt_footnote_marks(marks = "standard") %>% 
  tab_style(style = cell_text(align = "left"),locations = cells_source_notes()) %>%
  tab_style(style = cell_text(align = "left"),locations = cells_footnotes()) %>% 
  tab_options(footnotes.multiline = TRUE) %>% 
  opt_table_font(font = "Georgia")
Table 4.1: Patterns and positions of Norwegian distributors with minimum 10 titles released from 2008 to 2018
Resource Intensity Local Dependence Position
United International Pictures High Foreign-dominated Market lead
Twentieth Century Fox Norway High Foreign-dominated Market lead
The Walt Disney Company Nordic High Foreign-dominated Market lead
Nordisk Film Distribusjon High Local-led Local content lead
SF Studios High Foreign-led Market lead
Sandrew Metronome* High Foreign-led Market lead
Norsk Filmdistribusjon* Low Foreign-led Independent
Scanbox Low Local-led -> Foreign-dominated Independent -> Failure
Euforia Low Local-dominated Independent -> Specialist
Arthaus Low Foreign-dominated Specialist
Mer Filmdistribusjon Low Local-dominated Specialist
Another World Entertainment Low Foreign-dominated Specialist
Storytelling Media Low Foreign-dominated Specialist
Europafilm Low Foreign-dominated Independent
Tour de Force Low Foreign-led Specialist
Fidalgo Filmdistribusjon Low Foreign-dominated Specialist
Bollywood - Green Chili Low Foreign-dominated Specialist
KontxtFilm Low Foreign-dominated Specialist
Selmer Media Low Foreign-dominated Specialist
* Norsk Filmdistribusjon was founded in 1990, but was merged into Sandrew Metronme later. In 2011 the company was disbanded and Norsk Filmdistribusjon reverted to its original name. However, there is significant difference in the strategies of the companies and I have therefore kept them separate

Strategies as patterns

Show the code 
p = distributor_average_2008_2018 %>%
  filter(admissions > 10000) %>%
  filter(premieres > 2) %>% 
  filter(distributor_id != "UAV") %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x=domestic_share, y=admissions, size = premieres, color=distributor)) +
  geom_point(alpha=0.5) +
  scale_size(range = c(2, 15)) +
  theme_classic() +
  #theme(legend.position="bottom") +
  ylab("Total admissions") +
  xlab("Share of admissons from domestic titles") +
  theme(legend.position = "bottom")

ggplotly(p)
Figure 4.1: Strategies of Norwegian film distributors 2008 - 2018 as patterns

In Figure 4.1 Norwegian distributors that released at least 10 movies from 2008 to 2018 are placed along two axes. They are placed along the X axis using average yearly admissions as measure of their resource intensity, and along the Y axis using their average yearly share of local admissions as a measure. The size of each bubble indicates the yearly average number of theatrical releases.

High-resource versus low-resource

Figure 4.1 uses average yearly admissions as a measurement for the distributors access to economic resources, while high admissions are not always linked to economic resources it is a reasonable assumption over an 11-year period. From Figure 4.1, then it is clear that it is a significant difference between those with a high resource level and those with a low resource level.

The high-resource strategies are employed by companies with corporate structures that allow them to invest in more expensive movies and release more frequently. Low-resource companies have smaller or no corporate structures and invest in less expensive movies and/or less frequently.

Most distributors’ actions in other strategic areas can also follow this pattern. High-resource companies tend to release local titles on more attractive dates and have shorter cinematic windows. They tend to do home entertainment releases in-house and have more active pricing strategies, and their movies tend to be available on more platforms.

Their local titles also achieve higher prominence in the digital home entertainment markets, especially for older titles. Among the low-resource companies, there is significant variation in home entertainment performance, including when the cinema performance of those titles is considered.

The share of local titles with screenplays based on known original stories also follows the high- versus low-resource pattern. Nordisk Film Distribusjon has the most known content, followed by SF Studios. Norsk Filmdistribusjon, Mer Filmdistribusjon and other low-resource companies released more Norwegian movies with original than known content. The low-resource distributors also dominated genre movies and documentaries.

Local title dependence

One notable deviation from this pattern is in the distribution of local and foreign titles, which has implications for understanding different companies’ participation in the Norwegian film industry.

The degree to which Norwegian distributors rely on admissions from local releases varies from nothing to almost completely. However, this pattern does not, as Figure 4.1 shows, follow the resource intensity pattern. The local title dependence pattern is also far more granular. Distributors may not only make shifts along this axis over time, it can also vary from year to year. However, when looking at the 2008 to 2018 period overall, four local dependence strategies can be described: foreign-dominated, foreign-led, local-led, and local-dominated.

Foreign-dominated

These companies focus on foreign movies, even if some of them have released one or more Norwegian movies, and the success of Norwegian movies is not vital to their survival.

This is a very diverse category and includes large companies like The Walt Disney Corporation Norway and smaller arthouse-oriented companies like Fidalgo and Arthaus. The latter has released one Norwegian film in three of the last four years and is transitioning further into the foreign-led category along with Selmer Media, which also seems to be adding Norwegian movies more regularly, too.

Foreign-led

These companies distribute a combination of Norwegian and foreign movies with the foreign movies generally representing the majority of admissions. Foreign movies provide a safety net for these companies because of the relatively low investment requirements and more stable admissions, but they are still exposed to significant risk through their regular investment in Norwegian movies.

SF Studios is the prime example of this category; other companies include Tour De Force, Europafilm, Storytelling Media, Another World Entertainment and Norsk Filmdistribusjon.

Norwegian-led

These companies distribute Norwegian and foreign movies, but secure most admissions from the former – a strategy that attaches significant risk to the Norwegian movies in a way not easily offset by foreign rights. It is, for instance, not inconceivable that the poor performance of Scanbox’ Norwegian movies in 2011, 2012 and 2013 contributed to the company’s decision to leave Norway. This strategy also requires the ability to invest heavily in local film production.

Only Nordisk Film Distribusjon is currently employing this strategy consistently. While Nordisk Film Distribusjon releases more foreign titles than local titles, its biggest titles are local. Scanbox were also in this category from 2008 to 2011 before becoming foreign-dominated and then exiting the Norwegian market altogether.

Norwegian-dominated

These companies operate as full-time distributors and while they sometimes also distribute foreign movies, their viability is entirely dependent on Norwegian movies. Only two companies have attempted this strategy, Mer Filmdistribusjon and Euforia.

Mer Filmdistribusjon’s average share of local admissions is comparable to Norwegian led Nordisk Film Distribution. However, I classify both Mer Filmdistribusjon and Euforia as Norwegian dominated because they release local titles more frequently than foreign titles – a significant share of their foreign movies also have a local co-producer, underlining their commitment first and foremost to Norwegian movies and producers. In fact, Mer Filmdistribusjon was formed specifically to distribute Norwegian movies1 and, as we will see later in this chapter, in the decade under examination, Euforia has moved even further towards focusing on Norwegian movies.

Summary of minor patterns

An extensive analysis of Norwegian distributor strategies can be found in the appendix. The table below contains a summary of the key findings and how the various minor patterns conform to the major patterns and the positions.

Show the code 
corporate_strategies %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  opt_table_font(font = "Georgia") %>%
  tab_style(style = cell_text(weight = "bold"),locations = cells_column_labels())
Table 4.2: Corporate strategies
Resource intensity Local dependence Parent company Acquisition enabling strategies Release enabling strategies Marketing enabling strategies
High Foreign-dominated Hollywood studio Mainly foreign movies through vertical integration. Only very rarely release local movies. All are vertically integrated with SVOD services Marketing expenses covered by parent company
High Foreign-led Scandinavian conglomerate Foreign movies from several output and first look deals, including Hollywood majors. Some foreign movies from vertically integrated companies. Local movies from vertically integrated companies and independent producers. Some output deals Marketing expenses for some foreign titles covered by foreign studio
High Local-led Scandinavian conglomerate Foreign movies from first look deals, output deals with minor Hollywood studios and vertically integrated companies. Local movies from vertically integrated companies and independent producers. Output deals with several streaming services, runs bundled SVOD platform. Vertical integration with cinema chain Marketing expenses for some foreign titles covered by foreign studio. Vertical integration with ticket website, cinema advertising agency, and cinema chain used in marketing
Low Foreign-led Long term owners with film industry interests Some long-term relationships with local production companies. Some local minority co-productions through vertical integrations Regular co-operation with home entertainment specialists NA
Low Local-dominated Long term owners with film industry interests Some long-term relationships with local production companies. Some local minority co-productions through vertical integrations Some have regular co-operation with home entertainment specialists and other distributors NA
Low Foreign-dominated Often independent Some long-term relationships with local production companies. Some local minority co-productions through vertical integrations Some have regular co-operation with home entertainment specialists and other distributors NA
Show the code 
acquistion_strategies %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  opt_table_font(font = "Georgia") %>%
  tab_style(style = cell_text(weight = "bold"),locations = cells_column_labels())
Table 4.3: Acquisition strategies
Resource intensity Local dependence Investment level Release frequency Local titles based on known or original stories Countries of origin Genres
High Foreign-dominated High Very high Very rarely release local titles, all have been based on known content Almost all foreign titles from the USA No clear preference
High Foreign-led High. Hollywood output deals and somewhat expensive local titles Very high Most local titles based on known stories Most foreign titles from the USA, some European titles No clear preference
High Local-led High, somewhat expensive output deals and expensive local titles High Local titles far often based on known than original stories Most foreign titles from the USA, some European and Nordic titles No clear preference
Low Foreign-led High compared to other low-resource distributors. Local titles more expensive than foreign. Most local titles have relatively low budgets, but occasionally release moderately expensive local titles Usually somewhat high Local titles far more often based on original than known stories. Local films based on known stories can still have a substantial share of admissions Most foreign titles from the USA, some European, a few Nordic, and occasionally other countries No clear preference
Low Local-dominated Low, local titles are generally more expensive than foreign Low Local titles far more often based on original stories than known. No or few foreign titles outside of co-productions. Most foreign films are Nordic or European, occasionally other countries. Often show genre preference
Low Foreign-dominated Low, local titles are few and often very low budget Varies, can be high Local titles far more often based on original stories than known. Few titles from the USA, otherwise it varies from distributor to distributor Often strong genre preference
Show the code 
cinema_release_strategies %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  opt_table_font(font = "Georgia") %>%
  tab_style(style = cell_text(weight = "bold"),locations = cells_column_labels())
Table 4.4: Cinema release strategies
Resource intensity Local dependence Marketing budget Preferred dates
High Foreign-dominated High Foreign titles throughout the year
High Foreign-led High Foreign titles throughout the year. Some local tiles in spring, most local titles in autumn. Occasionally hold attractive dates like December 25
High Local-led High Most foreign titles in spring. Some local titles in spring, most in the autumn. Often hold attractive dates like the first weekend in November or December 25
Low Foreign-led Can be relatively high for local titles Foreign titles throughout the year except December. Local titles mostly in spring or early autumn.
Low Local-dominated Relatively low Few releases and no clear preference
Low Foreign-dominated Relatively low No clear preference
Show the code 
home_entertainment_strategies %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  opt_table_font(font = "Georgia") %>%
  tab_style(style = cell_text(weight = "bold"),locations = cells_column_labels())
Table 4.5: Home entertainment strategies
Resource intensity Local dependence In-house or external home ent. release Window length Window structure Release formats Pricing Streaming
High Foreign-led In-house Relatively short Regular All titles released digital and physical. Most on Blu-ray, but not always Active All 2019 titles on SVOD about a year after theatrical, most free-to-air/stream about two years after theatrical. Some older titles on global streaming services, more on Scandinavian and local services.
High Local-led In-house Relatively short Regular All titles released digital and physical. Most on Blu-ray, but not always Active All 2019 titles on SVOD about a year after theatrical, most on free-to-air/stream two years after theatrical. Highest share of older titles on global streaming services, some titles on Scandinavian and local services.
Low Foreign-led In-house or external. More often in-house on digital releases Relatively long Often irregular All titles released on digital formats. Most on DVD, rarely on Blu-ray Passive All 2019 titles had free-to-air/stream as first streaming window, about 18 months after theatrical release. No older titles on global streaming services, a few on Scandinavian streaming services
Low Local-dominated In-house or external. More often in-house on digital releases Relatively long Often irregular All titles released on digital formats. Most on DVD, rarely on Blu-ray Passive 2019 title had free-to-air/stream as first streaming window. One distributor had a significant share of titles on streaming services, the other had none.
Low Foreign-dominated In-house or external. More often in-house on digital releases Can be short, but more often long Often irregular Not all titles get home entertainment release. Most titles released on digital formats and on DVD, rarely on Blu-ray. Specialist release Blu-ray more often Passive One 2019 title on SVOD after about a year. Several on free-to-air/stream, from three months to two years after theatrical release. Very few older titles on Scandinavian streaming services, most titles not streaming at all.

Strategies as positions

Four viable positions have been identified based on the 2008 to 2018 data: market lead, local content lead, independent, and specialist. One could expect that a single high-resource company could lead both the market and the local content positions, but this has only happened once in the period examined.

The low-resource distributors are mainly specialists and compensate for a lack of financial resources with expert knowledge and acumen. The independent position, on the other hand, which plays a crucial role in the Norwegian film industry, is by many indications increasingly difficult to occupy. Even the top spot, which has had relatively high resources compared to the specialists, appears to be a precarious one.

However, Norwegian film policy, and notably the artistic scheme, creates a need for a distributor willing to handle movies with limited or unknown commercial potential. As long as NFI continues to support movies that the most commercially oriented distributors are not interested in, there will be a market for distributors specialising in these films.

Show the code 
home_ent_prominence %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  opt_table_font(font = "Georgia") %>%
  tab_style(style = cell_text(weight = "bold"),locations = cells_column_labels())
Table 4.6: Relative prominence of local titles in home entertainment markets
Position 2019 titles on iTunes Catalogue titles
Market lead Generally high prominence, especially children's titles. Artistic title had moderate prominence High prominence
Local content lead All titles have high prominence, especially children's titles. Very high prominence
Independent Most 2019 titles had low or no prominence Varied from moderate to none
Specialist Some 2019 titles had moderate prominence, others none None or very low

Market lead

The market lead position is a competitive position that covers the distributors that can potentially have the highest total admissions in any given year.

To reach the market lead position requires strong foreign titles. Even in 2013, when Nordisk Film Distribusjon grabbed the top spot mainly on the strength of local titles, it would still have come behind UIP and SF Studios without Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Lawrence 2013), which Nordisk Film Distribusjon released as a part of its output deal with Lionsgate.

However, a non-Hollywood distributor that wants to lead competitors also needs strong local titles. For local distributors, maintaining this position therefore involves a high level of risk as it requires heavy investment in unpredictable local movies. While this risk is offset by the relatively low risk of the foreign content, the foreign movies require large investments to acquire. Of course, the potential return is high as well, as it involves investing in both national and foreign projects with high commercial potential.

A company leading the market also has large relative power over the creation and especially the dissemination functions. While not necessarily the first choice for the most commercially oriented local content, a company in this position can still invest in and bring a commercially oriented Norwegian movie to market. With the addition of very commercially attractive foreign rights, this position also confers strong leverage over the cinemas and home entertainment platforms.

While Nordisk Film Distribusjon has also been in the contention for market lead, SF Studios is the local distributor that consistently has held this position. SF Studios have regularly invested in local titles, but Hollywood movies have made up the majority of the admissions. SF Studios also relied on relatively lower risk local content and invested in more known than original content.

SF Studios was also more willing to invest in original content and projects without NFI support than Nordisk Film Distribusjon. This could reflect a greater willingness to invest in risky projects because SF Studios is less reliant on Norwegian content, but it could also be that for the most attractive local projects Nordisk Film Distribusjon in the local content lead position was a more attractive partner.

Local content lead

The local content lead position covers the distributors that could potentially have the highest total admissions for local movies in any given year.

To hold the local content lead position a distributor must be willing and able to invest heavily in many market-oriented Norwegian movies, with the caveat that this investment has historically not been possible in Norway without also relying on acquiring foreign rights. This position carries the highest absolute risk, as it involves investing relatively large sums into relatively risky projects. However, it also has the potential to offer very strong returns.

The local content lead can also leverage the largest relative power over the local creation and dissemination functions. The position enjoys significant symbolic capital within the industry and with policymakers and will often be the first choice for the most commercially promising local projects. This in turn provides the commercially strongest local slate and catalogue, resulting in a strong bargaining position over both cinemas and home entertainment platforms in the markets where local content is important.

The only company to consistently hold this position is Nordisk Film Distribusjon. To manage the inherent risk of this position, Nordisk Film Distribusjon has relied on relatively lower-risk national titles based largely on known content, and relatively low-risk foreign content. While foreign movies are not the main earner for Nordisk Film Distribusjon, they remain a stable earner at relatively low risk. Most of Nordisk Film Distribusjon’s foreign titles come through output deals with Lionsgate, a Hollywood mini-major.

Independent

The independent position covers any company that neither have high resources nor a clearly defined specialisation. Based on the examined period, the position is highly competitive - there has usually been a clear independent lead. Independents that did not hold or lost the lead have either ceased operations or moved towards a specialisation.

Success as an independent lead seems to be linked to the ability to use strategies similar to the high-resource distributors, though at a lower level. In the period examined there has always been at least one independent distributor with markedly higher resources that invests more in local titles than the other low-resource distributors, while still having significantly fewer resources and investing less in local movies than the high-resource distributors.

While maintaining this position requires the willingness and ability to invest in multiple high-risk projects, each individual project needs relatively small investments. This position is similar to that of leading independent distributors in larger markets, although in Norway it is closely associated with movies financed through the artistic support schemes. The relative risk of this position remains high; less money is invested in individual projects but they are generally harder to evaluate commercially.

However, while the companies in this position released fewer local titles than SF Studios and Nordisk Film Distribusjon, they released comparable numbers of titles based on original screenplays, and a relatively large share of the artistic path titles.

This position also has less influence over the creation and particularly the dissemination functions than those previously described. Most distributors in this find it easier to secure deals with smaller companies. Additionally, while the independents’ lineups and catalogues can be artistically interesting, these companies have less commercial standing in negotiations with cinemas and home entertainment platforms.

Around 2008, the lead independent position was contested by Scanbox and Euforia. But when Schibsted divested from Sandrew Metronome, that company continued as Norsk Filmdistribusjon but could no longer pursue the most commercial projects and moved into a leading independent position. At the same time, Euforia’s total admissions fell, and the company began moving towards a specialist position. Scanbox also ceased operations soon after. While these changes may not be directly connected to Norsk Filmdistribusjon’s repositioning, it is possible there is only room for one contender for this position.

Several companies have tried to hold the independent position without challenging for the lead. Between 2008 and 2018, most of these independent companies relied on foreign titles, and the release of Norwegian titles was largely intermittent. Some, like ActionFilm and Europafilm, released several movies without government support. These companies were also far more likely to release Norwegian titles outside the most attractive autumn period, and home entertainment releases tended to be released late, if at all. For some projects these companies might represent a last-ditch attempt at cinematic distribution. With digitalisation, however, this function has lost power because more projects are being independently distributed.

Despite losing the lead Euforia continued as independent up to 2018. While Euforia’s success at the box office varied, the company’s impact in home entertainment, specifically SVOD, was significantly higher than other independent distributors. Since 2018 the company has taken clear steps towards specialising in local documentaries; it released no fewer than eight Norwegian documentaries from 2020 to 2022.

Specialist

The specialist position is a niche in the market that is difficult to enter without significant knowledge and symbolic capital, yet large enough to sustain a company. In larger markets, specialists might survive on local content alone. But in Norway, almost all specialist distributors rely on foreign content for the majority of their admissions as well as tending to have a fairly consistent and relatively high frequency of foreign versus Norwegian titles.

There are a number of specialist distributors in Norway, several of which have existed for some time. Across specialists, risk can vary considerably, but generally investments are relatively low and admissions relatively stable for the foreign titles.

Specialist distributors are vital for creators of documentaries, less commercial genre fare and other small projects. However, their catalogues and slates, especially of local content, tend to be limited and rarely appear on streaming services or have large cinema admissions. While data is limited, it does seem more likely that a title from a specialist distributor will get a DVD or Blu-ray release even with low admissions than will other types of distributors.

Among the specialists, Another World Entertainment focuses on horror, action, sci-fi, and fantasy genres, Arthaus concentrates on arthouse cinema, Kontext specialises in children’s movies and Tour de Force concentrates on documentaries.

Other distributors that could be considered specialists are Selmer Media, Mer Filmdistribusjon and Storytelling media. Storytelling Media’s Norwegian catalogue specialises in content from the Trondheim region, but the company has no clear preferences in foreign movies.

Mer Filmdistribusjon’s foreign titles align well with the local titles produced by the parent company, leading to a similar a position to Arthaus, albeit with a mix of foreign and Norwegian content that skews heavily towards local titles. Selmer Media had, as of 2018, released only one Norwegian movie, Brillebjørn på bondegården, (Marstrander 2018)), a children’s movie based on a TV character. However, a sequel was released in 2019, and at that point, six of its 22 foreign titles were children’s movies.

Failure

Strategies can also contribute to company’s failure and exit from the market. From 2008 to 2011 Scanbox pursued a strategy of one or two annual high-profile Norwegian titles before folding as a cinematic distributor in 2014.2 Most titles came from the production company Paradox, and most were successful. Three movies based on the children’s books about Knerten (Twigson) each garnered more than 300,000 admissions, and two thematically dark movies geared towards adults topped 100,000 each. However, in 2011 Paradox suffered a major flop with Pax (Sjursen 2011) and the 2012 release Into the white (Næss 2012) also suffered significant losses (Steingrimsen 2011; Rushprint 2012).

While Scanbox released a number of foreign films from 2008 to 2014, with the exception of 2012, its admissions for foreign titles were lower than those for Norwegian movies. An exceptionally good year for foreign titles in 2012 did not give the company the boost it needed, and Scanbox handed theatrical operations over to ActionFilm in 2014 (Haddal and Hoenvoll 2015).

ActionFilm released five Norwegian titles from 2013 to 2015. One of these amassed 78,000 admissions, but the rest averaged only 7,000 admissions each. ActionFilm also distributed some foreign titles during this period, but these fared even more poorly than its domestic titles. In 2016 ActionFilm also ceased theatrical operations.

Corianderfilm ended operations in 2012. The Bergen-based company largely distributed Norwegian documentaries, supplemented with European children’s movies.

While each of these companies was quite different, all relied on Norwegian titles, and none could rely on a patient parent company. Coriander and ActionFilm were independent. Danske Bank held the majority of Scanbox stock after Scanbox’ previous owner, an Icelandic financing company, folded during the 2008 financial crisis.

Changes in patterns and positions

In Part 1, I argue 2012 was a pivotal year for the Norwegian film industry. The launch of Netflix in Norway was the mainstream breakthrough for digital film dissemination and the end of the physical home entertainment era. I further argue that this has led to more of the commodification and dissemination functions of film in Norway being performed without any local input. If this is true, then we should expect to see Norwegian distributors’ strategies change as they adapt to the new market conditions.

Figure 4.2 shows average admissions and average local share of admissions for high-resource distributors for the 2008-2012 period and the 20013-2018 period. The size of the bubbles indicates the number of average yearly releases.

Show the code 
p2 = distributor_changes %>%
  filter(admissions > 1000000) %>% 
  filter(distributor_id != "UAV") %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x=domestic_share, y=admissions, size = premieres, label = period, color=distributor)) +
  geom_point(alpha=0.5) +
  scale_size(range = c(2, 15), name="No of premieres") +
  theme_classic() +
  theme(legend.position="bottom") +
  ylab("Total admissions") +
  xlab("Share of admissons from domestic titles") +
  theme(legend.position = "bottom")

ggplotly(p2)
Figure 4.2: Changes among the high-resource distributors

Averages from 2008-2012 and 2013-2018 among the Hollywood subsidiaries in Norway indicate no significant changes took place around 2012. UIP and Twentieth Century Fox gained some ground, and The Walt Disney Corporation lost some. Disney also reduced its release frequency and had slightly higher admissions from local titles. However, Disney’s local titles were released in 2012 and 2014 respectively, and could hardly be seen as a response to digitalisation.

The local high-resource distributors, on the other hand, all implemented significant changes. After Schibsted sold the company, Sandrew Metronome reverted to its original name, Norsk Filmdistribusjon, and stopped pursuing high-resource strategies. On announcing the sale in 2010 Schibsted said unpredictability drove its decision to leave the film market entirely. If the sale was a response to the coming digitalisation, it was particularly forward-thinking, as the market would become much more unpredictable in a very short time.

SF Studios increased its admissions on both local and foreign titles in the 2013-2018 period. However, the increase in foreign admissions was considerably larger than in local admissions, putting the company in a very clear market lead position.

For SF Studios, the 2008-2012 period both started and ended with difficulties, and the move was born of necessity and opportunity.

At the start of the period under examination, Max Manus (Rønning and Sandberg 2008) slipped past SF Studios when it declined production company Filmkameratene’s demands for an MG. Instead, Nordisk Film Distribusjon released Max Manus, which was subsequently the second best performing Norwegian movie of all time, selling more than 1 million tickets. Nordisk Film Distribusjon would continue to attract a large share of the most commercial local projects, along with Sandrew Metronome. SF Studios would frequently find itself third in local admissions, sometimes even challenged by Scanbox and Euforia.

SF Studios was also far more reliant on home entertainment titles than its local competitors, releasing as many home entertainment titles as the Hollywood subsidiaries. The dramatic fall in home entertainment revenue in 2012 therefore affected SF Studios more than other local distributors, and the company slashed its staffing (Lismoen 2017; Rush print 2014; Berge 2013).

An increase in cinematic releases might seem a reasonable response in the face of declining home entertainment profits. The demise of Sandrew Metronome also gave SF Studios an opportunity it likely would have pursued even if home entertainment sales had remained stable. Without Schibsted backing Sandrew Metronome could no longer hold on to their output deal with Warner and in April 2011 it went to SF Studios. With Sandrew Metronome gone, and Scanbox and Euforia reducing their investments, more local titles also found their way to SF Studios.

Nordisk Film Distribusjon also changed strategies during this period, increasing total admissions and dependence on local titles, while somewhat reducing its average number of releases. While this change is numerically significant, it also expresses continuity. Nordisk Film Distribusjon was re-established in 2008 after the Egmont and Sony joint venture, Columbia Tristar Nordisk Film Distributors, disbanded. Without a Hollywood major, Nordisk Film Distribusjon seems to have struck a path towards stronger reliance on local titles in 2008, and the changes have happened along this path.

Show the code 
p3 = distributor_changes %>%
  filter(admissions < 1100000) %>% 
  filter(distributor_id != "UAV") %>%
  filter(premieres > 2) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x=domestic_share, y=admissions, size = premieres, label = period, color=distributor)) +
  geom_point(alpha=0.5) +
  scale_size(range = c(2, 15), name="No of premieres") +
  theme_classic() +
  theme(legend.position="bottom") +
  ylab("Total admissions") +
  xlab("Share of admissons from domestic titles") +
  theme(legend.position = "bottom")
  
ggplotly(p3)
Figure 4.3: Changes among the low-resource distributors

Among the low-resource distributors, almost all have made significant changes. However, one should be careful about attributing these changes to any specific cause. Life as a small distributor is precarious and change can always be expected. Still, almost all of the low-resource distributors active before and after 2012 have increased their reliance on local titles. While the new entrants are all foreign-dominated, they have all relied more on local titles than the specialists and independents did in the 2008-2012 period.

The lead independent position has also seen significant change. Between 2008 and 2012, Scanbox and Euforia shared this position. Both relied heavily on local titles, but Scanbox had a lower volume and more commercial titles than Euforia. As previously discussed, Scanbox’ fall from the top rank can be attributed to the failures of local titles and the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Euforia’s shift to fewer and less expensive local titles can also be explained by the commercial failure of some of its 2011 and 2012 titles. Still, it is also likely Norsk Filmdistribusjon became a competitor for the kinds of local and foreign titles Euforia wanted to acquire. Since 2013, all of Euforia’s titles have been local or have had a local co-producer. The company has continued to release local documentaries and feature films, but since 2018 documentaries have been its biggest source of admissions.

Norsk Filmdistribusjon returned to its original pre Sandrew Metronome name in 2012 at a significantly lower resource level, without access to Hollywood majors. Even so, when the company stabilised, it held a position strikingly similar to the one Sandrew Metronome had. Even though average admissions for Norsk Filmdistribusjon from 2013 to 2018 were about a fifth of those for Sandrew Metronome from 2008 to 2012, the number of average yearly titles fell only slightly and the share of local admission remained around 40%.

Norsk Filmdistribusjon’s share of movies from the USA also remained on par with Sandrew Metronome, and it was the only low-resource distributor where more than half its titles were from the USA. The only other low-resource distributors with more than half of their foreign titles from the USA were Scanbox and Euforia, which again suggests that when Norsk Filmdistribusjon moved into the lead independent position, it acquired those mid-level American movies that were previously a source of relatively low-risk income (and a counterbalance to the high risk local titles) for Scanbox and Euforia.

In all this, Arthaus remained remarkably consistent. No other distributor in Norway had less variation in release frequency or average admissions, including the Hollywood subsidiaries. Arthaus did, however, move very slightly towards having more local movies. While all the company’s local movies from 2008 to 2018 combined saw fewer admissions than Barn, the release of Det er meg du vil ha (Haugerud 2014) and The Rules for Everything (Hiorthøy 2017) marked a steady evolution of Arthaus’ relationship with production company Motlys.

More local, more risky

This chapter has examined the strategies of Norwegian film distributors after 2008 as patterns and positions. Unsurprisingly, access to economic resources makes a big difference in terms of which strategies are pursued. While SF Studios and Nordisk Film Distribusjon do not have the resources required to pursue increased production value, heavy marketing and overproduction in the scale of Hollywood studios, they have access to more resources and have more strategic options than the other Norwegian distributors.

One indication of this is that they pursue a significantly more aggressive window structure than the others. Presumably they have more to gain by releasing titles closer to the expensive marketing campaigns run at the time of the cinema premiere, and are simultaneously less afraid of offending cinema owners since they have more and commercially stronger lineups than smaller distributors.

However, it can also be argued that when it comes to local movies, these high-resource strategies carry at least as much risk as the low-resource strategies. Even if Nordisk Film Distribusjon and SF Studios have dominated among domestic distributors, it cannot be said they have consolidated the market and created significant barriers to entry.

For every kind of Norwegian movie released in the period, there seems to have been two or more potential distributors. The local content lead would likely be the first choice for market path titles, but distributors in the market lead and the leading independent positions could also be considered. The same goes for the more expensive artistic path titles, while the lower budget artistic path titles could approach either the specialists, or independents. Depending on their budgets and ambitions, ex post path titles could also approach at least two distributors at any time.

This also reflects the relatively limited role of distributors as gatekeepers in the Norwegian film industry. For projects depending on public funding, NFI is the main gatekeeper. While a distribution deal is required to receive production funds from NFI, receiving the actual NFI production funds is a narrower gate. For projects without NFI funding, the distribution deal is key, but again the gatekeeping duties are shared with cinemas. A project might be able to self-distribute if no distribution company is willing, but without cinemas there is no viable path.

When entering the home entertainment market, the divide between the positions and high and low-resource distributors becomes a lot sharper. While lack the data to compare prominence and performance of movies in the DVD-era to the digital home entertainment markets, it seems likely that the divide is sharper in the digital markets. When less Norwegian movies are given prominence on any given platform, more of the Norwegian movies that get prominence are from the high-resource distributors. Access to the global American SVOD platforms, where the Norwegian audiences do most of their viewing, is with few exceptions limited to the high-resource distributors.

Several of the low-resource distributors are for all practical purposes cinema distributors and have no or limited home entertainment strategies. From an economic perspective, this makes sense, as their limited resources are better spent towards cinemas where most of the revenue is generated. However, it still impacts the prominence and presented availability of Norwegian movies in the home entertainment market.

This is problematic from the policy view that Norwegian movies should be available and from the perspective that popular culture plays a vital role in the public sphere. 2019 also saw three local titles that did not get physical releases, which also poses new challenges for the availability and long-term access of these movies through libraries. While individual distributors have made significant strategic choices for a variety of reasons, the one change that seems to have been industry-wide is an increased dependence on local movies. Norwegian movies also had a slight increase in share of total admissions in the period 2013 to 2018 compared to 2008 to 2012, but this was not large enough to explain the shift alone.

The data and methods employed in this chapter cannot not fully explain this shift. However, the relative stability of the local Hollywood subsidiaries supports the theory that the digitalisation of dissemination of film has led to a globalisation. If large parts of the commodification of foreign films were no longer being performed in Norway, then foreign films will lose value relative to local titles for Norwegian distributors. The relative strength of local content lead Nordisk Film Distribusjon’s, local titles in home entertainment markets compared to market lead SF Studios’, also suggest that the local catalogue became more valuable.

While local titles increased their relative value in the period, they remained high-risk investments. Their uncertain market value could not be offset by overproduction, heavy marketing, or increased production value strategies. To some extent, the risk of local productions was offset by making movies based on known content. However, the main risk reduction strategy for almost all Norwegian distributors remained the relatively stable income from foreign titles and deals with Hollywood studios were still required to be able to pursue high-resource strategies.

References

Berge, John. 2013. “SF Norge Bekrefter Slanking Av Staben – VIDEOMAGASINET,” June. https://videomagasinet.no/artikkel/sf-norge-bekrefter-slanking-av-staben/.
Haddal, Per, and Bjørn Hoenvoll. 2015. Fra film til fil: filmbyråenes historie. Oslo: Norske filmbyråers forening.
Haugerud, Dag Johan. 2014. “Det Er Meg Du Vil Ha.” Drama. Motlys/Arthaus. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3779880.
Hiorthøy, Kim. 2017. “The Rules for Everything.” Comedy, {{Drama}}. Motlys/Arthaus. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6275296/.
Lawrence, Francis. 2013. “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.” Action, {{Adventure}}, {{Sci-Fi}}. Color Force, Lionsgate Films. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951264/.
Lismoen, Kjetil. 2017. “Hva Betyr SF Studios Oppsigelser for Norsk Film?” Rushprint. https://rushprint.no/2017/07/hva-betyr-sf-studios-oppsigelser-for-norsk-film/.
Marstrander, Maiken. 2018. “Brillebjørn på Bondegården.” Family. Spark. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7960400.
Mintzberg, Henry. 1987. “The Strategy Concept I: Five Ps For Strategy.” California Management Review 30 (1): 11–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165263.
Næss, Petter. 2012. “Into the White.” Action, {{Biography}}, {{Drama}}. Zentropa International Norway, Trollhättan Film, Eurimages. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1876277.
Rønning, Joachim, and Espen Sandberg. 2008. “Max Manus.” Action, {{Biography}}, {{Crime}}. Filmkameratene/Nordisk Film Distribusjon. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029235/.
Rush print. 2014. “Rushprint. 2014 Vol. 49 Nr. 6.” Film. https://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digitidsskrift_2022011883150_001.
Rushprint. 2012. “Norsk Smell for Zentropa.” Rushprint. https://rushprint.no/2012/01/okonomikaos-for-zentropa-produksjon/.
Sjursen, Annette. 2011. “Pax.” Drama. Paradox. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1016223/.
Steingrimsen, Morten Andreas. 2011. “Hva Gikk Galt Med <<Pax>>?” Rushprint. https://rushprint.no/rushes/hva-gikk-galt-med-pax/.

  1. Mer Filmdistribusjon only released local titles produced by their parent company, Mer Film. If this was the extent of the company’s activity I would classify them as a variant of independent distribution, like other producer-owned distributors such as Beacon Isle and Sharing. However, Mer Filmdistribusjon operated like a regular distribution company and regularly released foreign movies.↩︎

  2. The company continues to release foreign titles in the Norwegian home entertainment market.↩︎