See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265166759

The Role of Media Critics in the Cultural Industries

Article  in  International Journal of Arts Management · January 2006

CITATIONS READS
23 1,597

1 author:

Stephane Debenedetti
Paris Dauphine University
42 PUBLICATIONS   180 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Arts and Restructuring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephane Debenedetti on 31 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 M ARKET RESEARCH
The Role of Media Critics
in the Cultural Industries
Stéphane Debenedetti
Introduction
B
oth managers and researchers in the
cultural sector rely primarily on indica-
tors of popular recognition to evaluate
the success of cultural goods. Numbers of tick-
ets sold, box-office revenues, selling prices and
measures of satisfaction are accorded attention
at the expense of other forms of recognition
such as recognition by peers or by experts (see
Allen and Lincoln, 2004). However, success in
the arts, both material and symbolic, is depen-
dent as much on the artists themselves and on
independent experts as on consumers (Joy and
Sherry, 2003). All three entities take part in a
complex network of relations through which
fame, reputation and commercial success are
constructed.
This paper considers one component of
the cultural “system” (Hirsch, 1972) or field
(Scott, 1995), media critics. I analyse the
critic’s positioning as a strategic intermediary
between artists, managers and the public. Like
academics, who share their expert status, crit-
ics can produce symbolic profit for artists and
other arts professionals in the shape of fame,
reputation or legitimacy. But the critic’s role
does not end there. Unlike scholarly analysts
of cultural goods, who have negligible com-
mercial impact (at least in the short term),
critics are integral to the economics of the cul-
tural product, being part of the media indus-
30
try and contemporaneous with the works they
critique.
Their complex links with creators and man-
agers upstream and with the public down-
stream put critics at the centre of a system
of material and symbolic relations that make
them key actors in the cultural industries.
Yet research in management has struggled
to define the critic’s role in arts and enter-
tainment – for two principal reasons. First,
it tends to approach criticism in terms of its
impact on the public, without first looking at
the critics themselves as distinct actors within
the cultural field: defining them, determining
the issues that are at stake, and examining the
history of criticism and its various functions
and forms. Second, of the functions that arts
critics may fulfil, only their direct and short-
term economic impact on revenues or profits
has received any real attention in the manage-
ment literature.
A comprehensive analysis of media criti-
cism, examining its intrinsic characteristics, Stéphane Debenedetti
how it functions and its relationship with is associate professor of
management at the Centre
other actors in the cultural industries, would
de Recherche D.M.S.P
make a valuable contribution to the litera- (Unité Mixte de Recherche
ture. This paper presents a multidisciplinary CNRS 7088), Université
synthesis of relevant works in the fields of Paris-Dauphine, France. His
management, economics, sociology and infor- research and teaching areas
are cultural management,
mation sciences, centred on this singular actor
cultural practices and the
in the cultural field. My objective is threefold: cinematic representation of
to define the characteristics of media criticism the business world.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
(What is media criticism?), to analyse its func-
tioning (How do critics go about reviewing?)
and to examine critics’ contribution to shap-
ing the structure and dynamics of the cultural
field (What multiple roles does criticism play in
the cultural industries?).
These three questions form the framework
of this paper. I conclude by proposing several
possible avenues for future research.
What Is Media Criticism?
Definition and Implications
market characterized by consumer uncertainty Acknowledgements
over the value of cultural goods and by the dif- I would like to
ficulty of developing practical knowledge to thank Florence Caro,
inform decision-making (each artistic creation Manuel Cartier,
being unique). Alain Debenedetti,
According to Shrum (1991), current criti- Fabrice Larceneux,
cal discourse typically includes three elements, Sophie Rieunier
corresponding closely to Hatchuel’s (1995) and the anonymous
typology of influence: reviewers for their
constructive com-
– descriptive, informative elements that
ments.
are familiar or easily accessible to the public;
these correspond to “factual guidance” (who
did what, when, where, with whom, etc.)
– analytical elements that supply an inter-
pretative context in which to understand the

I n this section I attempt to establish the fun-

damental characteristics of arts criticism.
The critic is defined as a journalist-informa-
tion provider whose independence within the
cultural industries is open to question.
The Critic as Independent Influencer
The word criticism comes from kritikos, to
discern or judge, which is itself derived from
krisis, a separation or rupture – “the critical
moment that decides the fate of a person or
thing” (Creton, 2000, p. 30; my translation).
It was not until the 17th century that arts
criticism acquired its contemporary meaning
of evaluating creative works at the aesthetic
and philosophical levels (Sgard, 1994). Today,
arts criticism is defined as the art of judging
creative works or, more specifically in refer-
ence to media criticism, as a form of evalua-
tive journalism that both informs about and
evaluates a work (Wyatt and Badger, 1990).
In terms of management, the critic is viewed
more as a special provider of information in a
work; “technical guidance” providing the
reader or listener with new ideas
– evaluative elements in the form of posi-
tive or negative judgements; these can be
understood as a form of “evaluative guidance”
(indicating the “right” way to judge the work).
This aspect of the review encourages the reader
or listener to cultivate an affective relationship
with the critic-journalist (as opposed to the
reporter-journalist), which entails a degree of
trust (or at least the feeling of shared interests;
Hatchuel, 1995) – together, of course, with the
risk of antipathy (Wyatt and Badger, 1990).
When considering critics as information
providers, we usually distinguish between
aestheticians – scholarly or academic crit-
ics – and media critics. Whereas aestheticians
draw their references from history, media crit-
ics are firmly rooted in the present, and are
constrained by publication deadlines. Because
the review is released almost simultaneously
with the cultural good, the critic-journalist,
unlike the aesthetician,1 participates directly
in the economic fate of the product. While

ABSTRACT This paper explores the role of critics in the cultural industries through a multidisciplinary literature review.
By synthesizing works in the fields of management, economics, sociology and information sciences, the author
raises three issues. He begins with a short discussion of the nature of media criticism and its relationship to the
cultural industries. He then tackles the question of how critical discourse is constructed: how do critics evalu-
ate cultural products, knowing that both the economic fate of the work and the critic’s professional legitimacy
depend on the evaluation? Lastly, he considers the multiple roles played by critics. The author explores how this
form of independent expertise plays a part in modelling the values and behaviours of different actors in the
cultural field. He concludes the literature review by proposing several avenues for future research.

KEYWORDS Media criticism, reviews, cultural industry, legitimacy, marketing

VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2006 31

they often draw from current theoretical ideas
and transmit academic aesthetic ideas to the
public (Becker, 1982), media critics have the
privilege – in the short term – of offering the
first public analysis of a new work. In the
medium term, according to Janssen (1998),
the amount of interest that a work receives
from critics is directly related to the number of
times it is reviewed when first released. Their
economic and symbolic functions, in the short
and medium terms, establish critics as central
actors in the cultural industries.
Another fundamental characteristic of crit-
ics is their independence from the producers
of cultural goods. Critics are expected to be
free to choose which works to review and to
evaluate them on the basis of merit. The critic
therefore has been seen as the “ideal-type” of
independent actor – resistant to all forms of
economic, political and religious influence
(Béra, 2003, p. 156). The authenticity of the
review – and consequently the critic’s credibil-
ity and power – rest on this theoretical inde-
pendence.
Criticism and Promotion
So, in theory, independent criticism is the
opposite of commercial promotion. Whereas
marketers are employed by the producers of
the cultural good, critics are not bound by any
overt contractual relationship. But since their
beginnings in the 17th century, media crit-
ics have increasingly been directly affected by
commercial considerations, as the publishers of
their reviews must fulfil the needs of both their
public and their advertisers (the “double sale”;
Béra, 2003). In order to maximize sales, the
media have always tried to minimize contro-
versy and fractious debate, and therefore have
not been able to guarantee the independence
of their critics for long. The media’s growing
preoccupation with economic concerns has
led the public to doubt the authenticity of
reviews. The public recognizes that, in bowing
to market forces, critics can become victims of
what Raymonde Moulin calls “moral devalu-
ation” (Béra, 2003, p. 178). Some even argue
that promotional material and criticism are
distinguishable only by critics’ efforts to hide
the promotional function of their reviews
(Bourdieu and Delsaut, 1975). This compro-
mising on the part of critics may be seen as a
caution against the veneer of authenticity that
critics bring to the commercial world so as to
ensure their viability (Boltanski and Chiapello,
1999).
This growing collusion of criticism with the
market has led to three shifts in the nature and
function of cultural reviews:
– Less media space is being allotted to
evaluative reviews (those that offer “techni-
cal” and “evaluative” guidance) and more to
those that simply provide information (enter-
tainment news and features, or “factual guid-
ance”). This phenomenon has been noted by
both researchers and industry professionals
(Inédits, 1997; Saltzman, 2002; Béra, 2003).
– This phenomenon is accompanied by
the emergence of what Creton (2000) calls
“promotional neo-criticism,” or the replace-
ment of traditional criticism by a simple para-
phrasing of material supplied in press kits.
– Finally, critics are now participating
directly in promotional activities more than
ever before. Quotes or snippets from their
reviews are incorporated into publicity mate-
rial or on stickers affixed to the packaging of
cultural goods (Larceneux, 2001).2 Critics also
contribute to promotional products by writing

RÉSUMÉ L’article explore le rôle des critiques dans les industries culturelles par une analyse documentaire multidisciplinaire. En faisant
la synthèse de travaux dans les domaines du management, de l’économie, de la sociologie et des sciences de l’information,
l’auteur aborde trois sujets. Il commence par discuter brièvement de la nature de la critique dans les médias et de sa relation
avec les industries culturelles. Il examine ensuite la manière dont le discours critique est construit : comment les critiques
évaluent-ils les produits culturels, sachant qu’à la fois le sort économique de l’œuvre et leur légitimité professionnelle dépen-
dent de l’évaluation? Enfin, il considère les multiples rôles joués par les critiques. L’auteur cherche à déterminer comment cette
forme de savoir-faire indépendant joue un rôle dans le modelage des valeurs et des comportements de différents acteurs dans
le domaine culturel. Il termine son analyse documentaire en proposant plusieurs voies pour la recherche future.

MOTS CLÉS Critique dans les médias, analyses documentaires, industrie culturelle, légitimité, marketing

32 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT

features about artists currently in the spotlight
– and in such cases it would not be in their
interests to judge the artistic works severely.
This commercial compromising has not,
however, killed legitimate criticism. As Béra
(2003) notes, negative criticism – which is by
definition not promotional – still exists, and
can even be used as a means of gaining vis-
ibility in the mass media. Each cultural indus-
try (cinema, music, literature, comic books,
etc.) now has its own specialist publications,
in which serious criticism is alive and well
(Heilbrun, 1997; Janssen, 1999).
Let us now consider the production of criti-
cal discourse. How does the field of media crit-
icism function? What are the individual and
collective issues at stake in the evaluation of
cultural goods?
The Field of Media Criticism:
Collective Functioning and
Individual Strategies
form a relational network in which each indi-
vidual unit exists only in relation to the other
units.
I will first explore the widely accepted
theory of critical consensus and then question
it, giving consideration to critics’ distinction
strategies and the possibility of defining dis-
tinct segments within this network.
Do Critics Agree? The Origins of
Critical Consensus
Most authors agree that there is solid con-
sensus within the field of arts criticism as to
which works and artists are worthy of critical
attention (Allen and Lincoln, 2004; Bonus
and Ronte, 1997; Janssen, 1997, 1998, 1999;
Van Rees, 1983). For example, Janssen (1997)
notes that, despite the diversity of new titles
being published, literary critics focus on a very
small number of works, agreeing on which
ones merit attention.
How to explain such consensus in a context
of such numerous offerings and limited media
space? According to Janssen (1997, 1998,

C ritical reviews that appear concurrently

with the market release of the cultural
good can influence the product’s economic
success in the short term and its symbolic suc-
cess in the long term. Therefore, in order to
understand the dynamics of the arts industry,
we have to examine the process of creating
arts criticism: How do critics go about review-
ing? The selections made by a critic are inher-
ently related to the functioning of the field of
media criticism – a microcosm in which “the
effects of gossip, rumour and fad” reverberate
loudly (Serroy, 1994, p. 115; my translation).
According to Bonus and Ronte (1997), critics
1999), consensus derives from the fact that
the attention given to a work does not depend
purely on critics’ subjective recognition of its
artistic merits, but is also influenced by a col-
lection of institutional factors. In the field of
literary criticism, Janssen found that the atten-
tion received by an author or publisher in the
past (in terms of number of reviews) is strongly
and positively connected to the attention that a
new work by the same author or from the same
publisher will receive.3 Repeating past choices
and focusing on “sure bets” leads to reviewer
consensus and duplication. In explaining this
phenomenon, most researchers reject the idea

RESUMEN Este artículo estudia el papel de la crítica en las industrias culturales a través de un análisis de la literatura de diversas discipli-
nas. A partir de la síntesis de trabajos en los campos de la gestión, la economía, la sociología y las ciencias de la información, el
autor plantea tres cuestiones. Comienza tratando brevemente la naturaleza de la crítica de medios y su relación con las industrias
culturales. A continuación se aboca a la cuestión de la construcción del discurso crítico: ¿cómo evalúan los críticos el producto
cultural, sabiendo que de esa evaluación depende tanto el destino económico del producto como la legitimidad profesional del
mismo crítico? Para finalizar, el autor considera los diversos papeles que desempeñan los críticos. El autor del trabajo observa
también de qué forma la participación de este conocimiento experto y externo contribuye a formar los valores y comportamientos
de los distintos actores en el ámbito cultural. Su análisis de la literatura concluye con una propuesta de diferentes caminos para
las investigaciones futuras.

PALABRAS CLAVE Crítica de medios, críticas, industria cultural, legitimidad, márketing

VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2006 33

that critics share a common expertise that
lends consistency to their judgements, argu-
ing instead that critical consensus is explained
primarily in terms of critical legitimacy. Each
critical affirmation is at once an acknowledge-
ment of the legitimacy of the work as a subject
of discourse and an acknowledgement of the
critic’s own legitimacy as a judge. But critical
discourse alone is not enough to affirm one’s
legitimacy; critics must also gain the approval
of their peers. It is for this reason that critics
keep up with their colleagues’ reviews. They
can test the quality of their own reviews only
by comparing their arguments to those of other
experts (Janssen, 1997; Van Rees, 1983). In
doing so, according to Louette (1994), critics
“cripple themselves through reciprocal super-
vision,” leading to standardization of opinions
(p. 47; my translation). By considering the
assessments of their peers, furthermore, critics
reduce their uncertainty about which works
merit their attention and how they should
attend to these works. Thus critics are inclined
to repeat their previous choices, limiting the
risk to their status as experts and reinforcing
the public’s faith in the legitimacy of their pre-
vious choices (Janssen, 1997).
In the normative approach, consensus is
explained slightly differently. Critics agree not so
much because they are monitoring each other,
but rather because they share certain restrictive
aesthetic and ideological beliefs. According to
Allen and Lincoln (2004), auteur theory – the
belief that a film should reflect its director’s per-
sonal vision – is an example of such restrictive
schemas. Developed in France in the 1950s,
auteur theory has influenced the attention that
certain films receive throughout the world.
Lastly, a more materialist vision of consen-
sus suggests that we should not underestimate
the power of the market to standardize critics’
choices. The fast pace of today’s media indus-
try favours coverage of “events,” regardless
of their specific medium. Critics can also be
influenced by explicit or implicit solicitation
from commercial interests – for example, in
the form of press passes or advertising con-
tracts (Béra, 2003; Cameron, 1995; Eliashberg
and Shugan, 1997; Hirsch, 1972).
Yet the findings of some studies indicate
that a variety of critical voices and individual
strategies can be found within the relational
network of media criticism.
34
Critical Discord? Disagreement
Strategies and Segmentation of
Critical Offerings
As we have seen, most of the research in this
area has focused on consensus. But do critics
actually seek to align their judgements with
those of their peers? According to De Nooy
(1999), critics take two different approaches:
agreement strategies and disagreement strate-
gies. In their evaluations they aim not only to
inform readers, but also to address artists and
other critics – by expressing feelings of affilia-
tion, deference or scorn. In so doing, they help
to define or redefine the internal structure of
the field of media criticism.
Disagreement strategies seem to be the mark
of “superstar” critics. Some critics gain a higher
level of legitimacy than others by identifying
a particular artist as the leader of an identifi-
able group (Wijnberg and Gemser, 2000), by
acting as trailblazers, or by developing new
perspectives that expand upon and refine the
evaluations of other experts (Janssen, 1997).
Because of her dominant position in the world
of film criticism in the United States in the
1970s, Paul Kael exemplified the “superstar
critic”: her three favourite films of 1976 won
all of the New York Film Critics Circle and
National Society of Film Critics awards that
year.4 When critics attain celebrity status they
are free to set themselves apart from their col-
leagues – for example, by taking an opposite
view for the sheer pleasure of reaffirming their
superior status (Farber, 1976).
The theory that critics seek consensus is
also called into question by various works that
attest to a high degree of segmentation among
critics. For instance, Chang’s (1975) quantita-
tive study of New York film reviews – based
on films released in 1972 – resulted in a three-
class typology of critics: elitist critics (those
published in The New Yorker, New York maga-
zine, Esquire, etc.), auteurist critics (those who
adhere to the French auteur theory) and, lastly,
entertainer critics (those associated with tele-
vision or radio). Debenedetti and Larceneux
(2000) similarly delineate three very different
types of film critic in France: elitist critics (elit-
ist in their choices and in the severity of their
reviews), popular critics (those whose tastes
are closest to the tastes of the general public)
and benevolent generalist critics (those who
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
give very positive reviews of a diverse range of
films).5 Finally, Zuckerman and Kim (2003)
argue that film critics fall into two categories
on the basis of their preference for either major
studio films or independent films.
In conclusion, we may wonder how to rec-
oncile the search for consensus and for distinc-
tion, for homogeneity and for segmentation,
in the field of criticism. Yet these are not nec-
essarily contradictory qualities. Consider that:
– Homogeneity operates only within each
segment of critics – the segment being the base
of the relational network and constituting the
reference group from which the opinion of
each critic is formed.
– Distinction or discord strategies are
employed primarily by the more legitimate
critics within each segment (the leaders within
the segment), who use them to reaffirm their
superior status.
– Critical attention (the number of reviews
that a work or an artist receives) is distinguish-
able from critical evaluation (whether a review
is positive or negative). Studies of consensus
often deal with critical attention (Janssen’s
research is an example), while disagreement
strategies and distinct segments are studied by
considering the preferences that critics express.
Critics can agree on what is worthy of their
attention while at the same time reviewing the
work quite differently.
I should point out that the research I cite
in the field of media criticism concerns only
those critics who receive substantial extrinsic
compensation for their work (status, legiti-
macy or salary). Amateur critics and critics
who do not conceal their promotional role do
not use those strategies that distinguish rela-
tional networks to which they belong only
marginally.
Regardless of the theoretical issues involved
in its production, once it is published or dis-
tributed a critical review becomes freely avail-
able to the market. Let us now look at the ways
in which the cultural industries appropriate
this information and are influenced by it.
The Role of Media Critics
T his section explores the processes by
which one actor in the cultural industries
VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2006
– the critic – helps to shape the structure and
values of the field and the behaviours of the
other actors in the field. It looks at the dif-
ferent roles that critical reviews can play from
the viewpoint of (1) the public, as consumers
of the cultural product; (2) the artists or those
responsible for producing the cultural prod-
uct; (3) arts managers; and (4) the cultural
field as a whole.
Critics and the Public
Reviews can influence the fate of a cultural
product by shaping the public’s preferences.
For the consumer, reviews can reduce the
fundamental uncertainty associated with an
experiential product, the quality of which
cannot be evaluated fully before purchase. In
a context in which the supply is large, time is
limited and markets are saturated with com-
mercial messages, taking notice of reviews
reduces one’s risk of making a poor choice
and simplifies the decision-making process
(Lampel and Shamsie, 2000). Numerous stud-
ies, mostly in the field of cinema, have found
a positive correlation between critical evalua-
tion and commercial performance (Basuroy,
Chatterjee and Ravid, 2003; Jansen, 2005;
Lampel and Shamsie, 2000; Litman, 1983;
Litman and Kohl, 1989; Prag and Casavant,
1994; Reddy, Swaminathan and Motley, 1998;
Sochay, 1994; Zuckerman and Kim, 2003)
and between critical evaluation and consumer
interest (Levin, Levin and Heath, 1997; Wyatt
and Badger, 1984, 1990). The correlation is
particularly strong for works that have weak
“signalling properties” for the general public6
(Lampel and Shamsie, 2000), low-budget
works (Basuroy, Chatterjee and Ravid, 2003;
Lampel and Shamsie, 2000; Levin, Levin and
Heath, 1997; Reinstein and Snyder, 2005) and
works that belong in unfamiliar genres (Desai
and Basuroy, 2005).
The impact of a review also depends on
the critic’s social and cultural proximity to
the reader (Bourdieu, 19797), certain intrin-
sic characteristics of the review (distinction,
coherence, consensus, etc.; d’Astous and
Touil, 1999; d’Astous and Colbert, 2002), the
medium (for example, some newspapers have
more influence than others; Larceneux, 2001;
Reddy, Swaminathan and Motley, 1998) and
the individual characteristics of the audience
35
of the review. On this last point, studies sug-
gest that consumers do not all have the same
attitude towards criticism. It has been found
that consumers who are more involved (CNC,
1989, 1992; Vézina, 1997) or more expert
(d’Astous and Colbert, 2002) rely on reviews
more than most people do.
From the consumer’s point of view, a review
is more than a decision-making tool. Reading,
watching or listening to a review can be a
source of utility in itself (Cameron, 1995),
especially in relation to its intellectual and
societal functions (Prédal, 2004). According
to Serge Kaganski (Les Inrockuptibles), criti-
cism “should serve to make us think, to make
us question. The important thing is debate
and discussion, more than whether the critic
likes a film or not” (Inédits, 1997). The review
can serve as a point of reference in everyday
conversation, not only on subjects relating to
art, but also in discussions of societal problems
(Shrum, 1991). An example is the debate over
Roberto Benigni’s film Life Is Beautiful and
its depiction of concentration camps. This
form of intellectual and social appropriation
of reviews applies especially to consumers who
have a high level of cultural capital.
Lastly, in the context of ostentatious con-
sumption or “snob appeal,” knowledgeable
and respected reviewers influence not only
consumer choices but also the discussions of
those who seek social distinction by appro-
priating their words (Belk, 1987; Cameron,
1995).
Critics and Artists
For artists and artistic directors, reviews can be
seen as short-term measures of artistic quality
that are important in establishing an artist’s
reputation. In describing this role, Allen and
Lincoln (2004) refer to critics as “reputational
entrepreneurs” (p. 878).
Evaluating the quality of a work of art is a
complex process that relies on the assessments
of various experts in the cultural field (Bonus
and Ronte, 1997). These experts, who include
critics, have the competence to judge the value
of the work, understood since the end of the
19th century as its value in relation to art his-
tory (Mouraux and Sagot-Duvauroux, 1992;
Wijnberg and Gemser, 2000). Critics evaluate
a work of art by comparing it to past works,
36
in effect ascribing it a specific genealogy and
assessing its relative contribution (variations
on a theme, innovation in continuity, radical
novelty, etc.; Becker, 1982; Joy and Sherry,
2003).
By revealing the quality of art works, criti-
cal consensus plays a role in establishing repu-
tations – economists see this as accumulating a
form of capital (Cameron, 1995). This process
of reputation-building through criticism can
ensure fame and posterity (in both the short
and the long term; Allen and Lincoln, 2004)
and can also translate into marketable value, in
the form of increased demand or subsidies.8
Therefore, the reputation that results from
media criticism can serve to motivate or dis-
courage both artists and artistic directors
(Shrum, 1991). For example, the amount of
encouragement that publishers give authors
(on whom their publishing programs depend)
is tied to the reviews the authors’ work has
received in the past (Van Rees and Vermunt,
1996). Although critics can sometimes be
harsh, they do nevertheless play a role in an
artist’s success or failure. Because of their role
in discovering new talent and new aesthetics,
reviews can be seen as a research and develop-
ment tool (Shrum, 1991; Cameron, 1995; Joy
and Sherry, 2003).
Critics can also influence an artist’s career
through their direct participation in institu-
tions on the cultural landscape such as regula-
tory bodies and granting agencies. In France,
for example, Prédal (2004) notes that cinema
critics help to define school film programs, par-
ticipate in the selection of films to be shown at
festivals and take part in the selection of films
to be awarded the art et essai label.
In conclusion, artists and arts manag-
ers who seek scholarly or highbrow recogni-
tion cannot afford to ignore critical opinion.
Critical approval serves to enhance an art-
ist’s status not only among his or her peers,
but also among patrons, experts, and public
bodies and institutions. But within the largest
swath of the cultural industries, where popular
approval is far more important than scholarly
recognition, critics play a less central role. A
good review can enhance an artist’s reputation
and a bad one can wound an artist’s pride,
but the real impact of media criticism may be
fairly limited.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
Critics and Marketing
From an arts management perspective, reviews
can serve as a form of independent advertising
that is effective because it is perceived as objec-
tive (Shrum, 1996). A positive review is the
equivalent of an advertisement (Hirsch, 1972).
In exchange for free publicity, cultural organi-
zations provide critics with free products and
services in the form of samples, screenings or
visits. Even a negative review can contribute to
the artistic legitimization of a work by deem-
ing it a valid subject for discussion; authors
agree that media coverage can count as much
as the evaluation itself (Hirsch, 1972; Wyatt
and Badger, 1990; Zuckerman and Kim,
2003). As the artist Delacroix explained, “even
in hurting you they [critics] reveal to the world
that you are alive; without them you would be
insects snuffed out before reaching the light”
(in a May 1829 article in La Revue de Paris,
quoted in Majastre, 1994, p. 106; my transla-
tion).
In addition to constituting a form of direct
publicity – sometimes purposely (Inédits,
1997) – reviews are frequently used as “raw
material” in advertising campaigns. We have
seen that critics’ comments and ratings are
sometimes incorporated into promotional
tools such as advertisements, labels and pack-
aging (CDs, DVDs, books). In addition to
its potential influence on consumer decision-
making, the use of positive reviews is likely
to enhance relations between critics and arts
organizations. A critic’s celebrity is acceler-
ated every time he or she is quoted in this
way – which could well motivate critics to
produce favourable comments (Broydo, 1997;
Eliashberg and Shugan, 1997).
According to Becker (1982), the market-
ing role is divided between sellers, who exhibit
the work, and critics, who supply the dis-
cursive apparatus that justifies it and ensures
that it will be appreciated. For arts managers,
the challenge lies in controlling the critic as
an independent intermediary who can either
promote or hinder the distribution of their
products to various audiences. That is why
arts organizations sometimes resort to coer-
cive methods to ensure the “collaboration” of
critics: these methods range from the simple
public reproach, to denying them access to
artists and products, to threatening to cancel
VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2006
advertising contracts with the affiliated media
outlet (Béra, 2003; Hirsch, 1972; Lovell,
1997).
Criticism does not have the same com-
mercial importance for small, alternative
arts organizations as it does for mass enter-
tainment companies. Because their promo-
tional budgets are limited and they cater to a
demanding public in terms of artistic quality,
alternative or avant-garde organizations might
rely heavily on critics to promote their less vis-
ible works (Lampel and Shamsie, 2000). But
in contrast to the mass entertainment market,
where negative reviews can be drowned out
by an advertising campaign that presents
the work as not to be missed (Farber, 1976;
Lampel and Shamsie, 2000), bad press in this
context can be deadly. Zuckerman and Kim’s
theory (2003) is more complex. A film that is
reviewed mainly by specialized media devoted
to independent cinema, they argue, is given
the status of “independent” (in contrast to the
Hollywood blockbuster). While this can limit
the film’s success with the general public, it
can serve to promote its distribution on the
art-house circuit.9
Another potential function of critics is to
provide early market signals prior to distribu-
tion. Promoters can use critics’ reactions to
previews, for example, to make commercial
decisions in terms of advertising directions, or
to estimate a product’s distribution network
or order rates. In this role, the critic acts as
a “predictor” as opposed to as an “influencer”
(Eliashberg and Shugan, 1997; Farber, 1976;
Van Rees and Vermunt, 1996).
Critics and the Cultural Field
For the cultural industries, criticism serves
two functions: the “institutional regulation
of innovation” (Hirsh, 1972) and the artistic
legitimization of the field as a whole.
Because it mediates between supply
and demand, within the “cultural indus-
try system,”10 arts criticism can be seen as
an institutionalized process in which experts
select among the works offered, or even as an
organized filtration system that regulates the
influx of new products in a market saturated
with prototypes (Hirsh, 1972; Wijnberg and
Gemser, 2000). This selection process oper-
ates, from creation to reception, via a series of
37
filters that allow cultural works to be discov-
ered, then supported and finally presented to
the public. It is not only cultural organizations
that depend on these “gatekeepers,” but the
cultural field as a whole (Hirsh, 1972).
The second role of critics at the level of the
cultural industries is associated with artistic
legitimization. Bourdieu (1971) argues that
the purpose of specialized criticism is to mea-
sure the autonomy of a field – in other words,
its cultural legitimacy. This dates back to the
19th century, when the process by which art
works were selected became dominated by
experts instead of by artists’ peers (Wijnberg
and Gemser, 2000). Since that time, for a
cultural form to achieve artistic recognition it
must be seen as possessing a certain aesthetic
sophistication and its creators as being inspired
by a sort of inner truth rather than by practi-
cal considerations – “art for art’s sake” (Regev,
1994).
Anyone who has the ability to guarantee
that a cultural form meets these three require-
ments possesses considerable symbolic power.
Since the 1970s, cultural forms that had pre-
viously been referred to as “popular” – espe-
cially popular music and film – have benefited
enormously from this kind of legitimization
through criticism (Baumann, 2001, 2002;
Heilbrun, 1997; Janssen, 1999; Regev, 1994).
Janssen (1999) describes how “legitimate” art
(theatre, classical music) had to increasingly
share its place in Dutch newspapers with new
artistic areas (popular music, literature and
film) during the 1970s and 1980s. A new arts
hierarchy emerged, one that could be measured
by the proportion of editorial space devoted to
each art form.11 In the United States, Heilbrun
(1997) made a similar observation when mea-
suring the growth in the number of articles in
the New York Times covering “popular” cul-
ture against the number dedicated to “high”
culture from 1988 to 1993. Baumann (2002)
noted the same phenomenon when examining
the use of reviewer quotes in film advertise-
ments in the United States. Baumann studied
2,326 film advertisements from 1935 to 1980.
He found that the use of reviewer quotes
increased steadily throughout the period, with
a spectacular 20% increase between 1965 and
1970, which has since stabilized.12 The period
of dramatically increased growth saw a cor-
responding increase in the use of terms like
38
“direction” and “master.” Baumann sees these
results as a reflection of cinema’s evolving role
in the cultural hierarchy of the United States
during the late 1960s, a time when movies
became a legitimate art form.13
The pivotal role of criticism in legitimizing
artistic endeavours is not just symbolic: shifts
in the legitimacy of this cultural form have
economic and political consequences. For
example, critics can help to defend the inter-
ests of a particular cultural sector or promote
an element of a national culture, both politi-
cally and economically.
Some Avenues for Future Research
T his literature review has underlined the
centrality and complexity of the role that
critics play within the cultural field. I began
by examining the specific characteristics of this
singular actor, and then described the chang-
ing status of critical discourse, from the con-
ditions of its production to the various issues
that result from its presence on the cultural
information market.
The findings of this review point to cer-
tain directions for future research. It is urgent
that we expand upon existing work on the
behaviour of critics: What criteria do critics
use in selecting works to review? What factors
besides the aesthetic and artistic dimensions
come into play when a critic evaluates a work?
In one approach to these topics, Debenedetti
and Larceneux (1999), in a study of the French
cultural magazine Télérama, found that they
could define the magazine’s cinematographic
preferences from objective characteristics of
the films it featured (genre, country of origin,
presence of a star, the number of cinemas in
which the film is screened, etc.). They found
that Télérama preferred auteur films with
strong commercial potential. Hsu (2003),
in analysing the influence of critics’ evalu-
ation standards in their selection of films to
review, found that critics were more likely to
select films from categories for which they had
already drawn up a coherent critical structure.
Finally, to better understand how critics make
their choices and judgements also requires
a typological approach to the field of media
criticism.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
 In addition to studying critics’ behaviours,
valuable research could be carried out in three
specific areas: the ambiguous relationship
between cultural organizations and critics, the
mutual influence of critics and their public,
and the evolution of arts criticism.
With regard to the relationship between
critics and cultural organizations, one inter-
esting area of study would be the diversity
and effectiveness of the various tactics that
cultural organizations employ – both for-
mally (ranging from lavish multimedia kits
and media cruises to rejecting media coverage
and cancelling advertising contracts, or even
law suits) and informally (public reproaches,
implicit signals, etc.) – to control media criti-
cism within the various cultural fields. The
characteristics of the particular field would
have to be taken into account, in terms of its
size, its degree of legitimacy, how the critical
apparatus operates within the related media
organisms and the level of public subsidies it
receives. This implies a parallel reflection on
the ambiguous relationship between media
criticism and commerce. Additionally, the
concept of critic-predictor, often discussed in
the context of the film sector, could be consid-
ered in other cultural sectors. The artistic and
strategic choices entailed in the acceptance of
this hypothesis should be evaluated. Lastly,
although the impact of reviews on the status of
artists or artistic directors has been examined,
their impact on the behaviour of those who
support them financially (through grants or
public or private donations and assistance) has
not received much attention. This is a research
direction that is wide open.
The many studies describing critics as influ-
encers of attitudes and consumption behav-
iours have not exhausted the subject of the
relationship between critics and the public. An
in-depth qualitative approach to this question
is particularly lacking. Such research could go
beyond the short-term consumption decision
to consider the place of criticism throughout
the consumption process: How do consum-
ers appropriate reviews during the decision-
making process? What impact do reviews
have on consumers’ evaluations of the cul-
tural products they experience? What role do
reviews play, in the medium and long term,
in consumers’ involvement and expertise with
regard to cultural products and in modelling
VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2006
consumers’ motives? The measurement of the
influence of reviews on consumer choices also
points to urgent methodological challenges, in
particular for studies based on field data. How
can critical discourse and public response be
measured quantitatively when they are both so
segmented? Should we try to relate these two
aspects to each other using aggregated data?
Do the many moderating and mediating vari-
ables entailed in the correlation of reviews and
consumer choices threaten the validity of many
field results? In terms of information process-
ing, it would also be interesting to examine
the relative effects of reviews, reviewer quotes
featured in promotional materials and on
packaging, and even “score cards” – whereby
critics rate cultural products on a predefined
scale. When their evaluation is reduced to a
simple score or a snippet of praise, even the
most knowledgeable critics are reduced to the
status of consumer guide. Finally, while crit-
ics have an influence on the public, research
in several areas suggests that the public also
has an influence on critics. For example, the
“uses and gratification model” from the infor-
mation sciences proposes that consumers con-
tinue to use a medium only if they find in it
the sources of gratification they seek. People
who use mass media, then, actively participate
in determining its content (Martin, 1991).
Although anchored in the myth of absolute
independence, critics are as subject to their
readers’ opinions as they are influenced by the
decisions of media executives and the produc-
ers and distributors of the cultural goods they
review. How do these diverse sources of influ-
ence interact to guide the critic’s work?
A final area for research relates to the ques-
tion of cultural legitimacy. While the role
played by independent criticism in legitimiz-
ing a cultural sector has been documented, sev-
eral questions remain. Does this legitimizing
function carry weight in postmodern society,
where the hierarchical ordering and symbolic
status of cultural forms has tended to become
blurred, or at least to change?14 Could a weak-
ening of the traditional function of reviews in
favour of a more purely informative function,
as cited by many commentators, lead to the
reverse process – that is, could it delegitimize
the artistic value of certain cultural sectors?
39
Notes
1. However, it is important to distinguish between daily, weekly
and monthly publications, as they operate under different time
constraints.
2. As the critic Ruby Rich explains: “Being a film critic is more
and more being a chronicler of orchestrated hype… The mass
marketing of a product can only be controlled if critics accede
to its publicity system and dutifully provide the quotes to run
the ads.” (Inédits, 1997)
3. Janssen (1998) points to another factor influencing critical
attention, though to a lesser degree: the number and nature of
an author’s secondary literary activities (for example, publish-
ing stories or poems in specialist publications, writing criticism,
serving on a literary jury). Literary versatility increases a writer’s
chances of attracting critical attention.
4. According to Farber (1976), before a film is released most
critics already know what the handful of top critics think of it,
and once they get a whiff of positive reaction to a film, few crit-
ics dare to oppose it, finding themselves “paralysed by the fear
of being out of step” (p. 421).
5. The study used factor analysis of Pariscope’s centrefold, which
is devoted to its critics’ top recommendations of the week.
Pariscope is a French weekly.
6. “Signalling properties” for a film, for example, could include
having famous actors in the cast, being filmed in an exotic or
spectacular location, or being based on a bestselling book.
7. “A critic cannot have any influence on his readers unless they
give him that power because they are structurally in agreement
with him in their world view, their tastes and their entire habi-
tus.” (Bourdieu, 1979, p. 267; my translation)
8. While cinema editor for Le Monde, Jean-Michel Frodon illus-
trated this in the context of film directors: “Comparing a direc-
tor to Bresson [in a review] may not bring droves of people out
to the cinema, but…it accords the director recognition, stature,
which will help in selling the film to a television network, in
getting foreign distribution or in making the next film. Reviews
have a broader impact today than ever before.” (Inédits, 1997;
my translation)
9. Zuckerman and Kim (2003) show that film critics can be dis-
tinguished according to the proportion of independent versus
mainstream movies they review.
10. Hirsch (1972) defines the “cultural industry system” as com-
prising all organizations “engaged in the process of filtering new
products and ideas as they flow from creative personnel in the
technical subsystem to the managerial, institutional and societal
levels” (p. 642).
11. These shifts represent more than a loss of status for theatre
and classical music. They can be viewed as a “dehierarchiza-
tion,” or as a broadening of the terrain of artistic legitimacy. In
the same period, institutions such as dictionaries and specialty
magazines appeared for pop/rock music and cinema, along with
more consumer-oriented tools for the traditional arts (guides,
bestseller lists, marketing plans, etc.; Janssen, 1999).
12. Baumann’s results were the same whether he compared the
average number of quotes per advertisement or the average
number of words per citation.
13. Baumann concludes by remarking that the presence of
reviewer quotes on marketing material signifies little today
because the practice has become so widespread and because, in
his opinion, critics are no longer serious.
14. Hierarchical ordering is now more common within artis-
tic fields, where legitimate and illegitimate works co-exist, than
among different artistic fields.
40
References
Allen, M.P., and A.E. Lincoln. 2004. “Critical
Discourse and the Cultural Consecration of
American Films.” Social Forces, Vol. 82, no 3,
p. 871–894.
d’Astous, A., and F. Colbert. 2002. “Moviegoers’
Consultation of Critical Reviews: Psychological
Antecedents and Consequences.” International
Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 5, no 1, p. 24–
35.
d’Astous, A., and N. Touil. 1999. “Consumer Evalua-
tions of Movies on the Basis of Critics’ Judgments.”
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 16, no 8, p. 677–
694.
Basuroy, S., S. Chatterjee and S.A. Ravid. 2003. “How
Critical Are Critical Reviews? The Box Office
Effects of Film Critics, Star Power, and Budgets.”
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, n° 4, p. 103–117.
Bauman, S. 2001. “Intellectualization and Art World
Development: Film in the United States.” American
Sociological Review, Vol. 66, n° 3, p. 404–426.
Bauman, S. 2002. “Marketing, Cultural Hierarchy,
and the Relevance of Critics: Film in the United
States, 1935–1980.” Poetics, Vol. 30, n° 4, p. 243–
262.
Becker, H.S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Belk, R.W. 1987. “La consommation symbolique
d’Art et de Culture.” In Economie et Culture : les
outils de l’économiste à l’épreuve. Paris: La Docu-
mentation Française, p. 137–146.
Béra, M. 2003. “Critique d’art et/ou promotion cul-
turelle.” Réseaux, n° 117, p. 155–187.
Boltanski, L., and E. Chiapello. 1999. Le nouvel esprit
du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.
Bonus, H., and D. Ronte. 1997. “Credibility and
Economic Value in the Visual Arts.” Journal of
Cultural Economics, Vol. 21, n° 2, p. 103–118.
Bourdieu, P. 1971. “Le marché des biens symbo-
liques.” L’Année sociologique, n° 22, p. 49–126.
Bourdieu, P. 1979. La distinction, critique sociale du
jugement. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Bourdieu, P., and Y. Delsaut. 1975. “Le couturier et sa
griffe : contribution à une théorie de la magie.” Actes
de la recherche en sciences socials, n° 1, p. 7–36.
Broydo, L. 1997. (Not Such a) Thriller! Critics Give
Movie Studios a Thumbs-Down for Twisting Their
Words. http://www.motherjones.com/news/out-
front/1997/11/broydo.html
Cameron, S. 1995. “On the Role of Critics in the
Culture Industry.” Journal of Cultural Economics,
Vol. 19, n° 4, p. 321–331.
Chang, W.H. 1975. “A Typology Study of Movie
Critics.” Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 52, Winter,
p. 721–725.
CNC. 1989. Les habitués du cinéma. Paris: La Docu-
mentation Française.
CNC. 1992. La fréquentation occasionnelle du cinéma.
Paris: La Documentation Française.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
Creton, L. 2000. “Critique et promotion dans l’univers
cinématographique : distinctions, conjunctions
et dysphories.” Entrelacs, March (Marketing du
cinema), p. 27–37.
Debenedetti, S., and F. Larceneux. 1999. “Peut-
on prévoir le comportement de la critique ?
Exploration pour une nouvelle voie de recherche
en marketing culturel.” In Actes de la 4ème Journée
de Recherche en Marketing de Bourgogne : market-
ing des activités culturelles, des loisirs, du tourisme
et du sport, M. Filser, ed. 25 November, Dijon,
p. 94–108.
Debenedetti, S., and F. Larceneux. 2000. “Typologie
de la critique cinématographique et impact de la
critique sur les entrées en salle.” Entrelacs, March
(Marketing du cinema), p. 38–52.
De Nooy, W. 1999. “A Literary Playground: Literary
Criticism and Balance Theory.” Poetics, Vol. 26,
n° 5/6, p. 385–404.
Desai, K.K., and S. Basuroy. 2005. “Interactive
Influence of Genre Familiarity, Star Power, and
Critics’ Reviews in the Cultural Goods Industry:
The Case of Motion Pictures.” Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 22, n° 3, p. 203–223.
Eliashberg, J., and S.M. Shugan. 1997. “Film Critics:
Influencers or Predictors?” Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 61, n° 2, p. 68–78.
Farber, S. 1976. “The Power of Movie Critics.”
American Scholar, Vol. 45, n° 3, p. 419–423.
Hatchuel, A. 1995. “Les marchés à prescripteurs.
Crises de l’échange et genèse sociale.” In L’inscrip-
tion sociale du marché, A. Jacob and H. Vérin, eds.
Paris: L’Harmattan, p. 205–225.
Heilbrun, J. 1997. “The Competition between High
Culture and Popular Culture as Seen in the New
York Times.” Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 21,
n° 1, p. 29–40.
Hirsch, P.M. 1972. “Processing Fads and Fashions:
An Organization Set Analysis of Cultural Industry
Systems.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 77,
n° 4, p. 639–659.
Hsu, G. 2003. Evaluative Schemas and the Attention of
Critics on the U.S. Film Industry. Working paper.
Available: http://gsiaserver1.gsia.cmu.edu/semi-
nars/docs/paper_hsu.pdf
Inédits. 1997. “Etat critique?” n° 7 (Spring/Summer).
Jansen, C. 2005. “The Performance of German Motion
Pictures, Profits and Subsidies: Some Empirical
Evidence.” Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 29,
n° 3, p. 191–212.
Janssen, S. 1997. “Reviewing as Social Practice:
Institutional Constraints on Critics’ Attention
for Contemporary Fiction.” Poetics, Vol. 24, n° 5,
p. 275–297.
Janssen, S. 1998. “Side-Roads to Success: The Effects
of Sideline Activities on the Status of Writers.”
Poetics, Vol. 25, n° 5, p. 265–280.
Janssen, S. 1999. “Art Journalism and Cultural Change:
The Coverage of the Arts in Dutch Newspapers.”
Poetics, Vol. 26, n° 5/6, p. 329–348.
VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2006
Joy, A., and J.F. Sherry Jr. 2003. “Disentangling the
Paradoxical Alliances between Art Market and Art
World.” Consumption, Markets and Culture, Vol. 6,
n° 3, p. 155–181.
Lampel, J., and J. Shamsie. 2000. “Critical Push:
Strategies for Creating Momentum in the Motion
Picture Industry.” Journal of Management, Vol. 26,
n° 2, p. 233–257.
Larceneux, F. 2001. “Critical Opinion as a Tool in the
Marketing of Cultural Products: The Experiential
Label.” International Journal of Arts Management,
Vol. 3, n° 2, p. 60–71.
Levin, A.M., I.P. Levin and C.E. Heath. 1997. “Movie
Stars and Authors as Brand Names: Measuring
Brand Equity in Experiential Products.” Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, p. 175–181.
Litman, B.R. 1983. “Predicting Success of Theatrical
Movies: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Popular
Culture, Vol. 16, n° 4, p. 159–175.
Litman, B.R., and L.S. Kohl. 1989. “Predicting
Financial Success of Motion Pictures: The ’80s
Experience.” Journal of Media Economics, Vol. 2,
Fall, p. 35–50.
Louette, J.F. 1994. “Du bourgogne et du bordeaux.” In
Critiquer la critique ? Culture et médias, l’impossible
mariage de raison, J.L. Roux, ed. Grenoble: Ellug,
p. 45–52.
Lovell, G. 1997. “Movies and Manipulation: How
Studios Punish Critics.” Columbia Journalism
Review, Vol. 35, n° 5, p. 9–12.
Majastre, J.O. 1994. “Le jeu du je.” In Critiquer la
critique ? Culture et médias, l’impossible mariage de
raison, J.L. Roux, ed. Grenoble: Ellug, p. 105–112.
Martin, M. 1991. Communication et médias de masse :
culture, domination et opposition. Montreal: Presses
de l’Université du Québec.
Mouraux, N., and D. Sagot-Duvauroux. 1992. “Les
conventions de qualité sur le marché de l’art.”
Esprit, Vol. 10, October, p. 43–54.
Prag, J., and J. Casavant. 1994. “An Empirical Study
of the Determinants of Revenues and Marketing
Expenditures in the Motion Picture Industry.”
Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 18, n° 2,
p. 217–235.
Prédal, R. 2004. La critique de cinéma. Coll. Cinéma
128. Paris: Armand Colin.
Reddy, S.K., V. Swaminathan and C.M. Motley. 1998.
“Exploring the Determinants of Broadway Show
Success.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35,
n° 3, p. 370–383.
Regev, M. 1994. “Producing Artistic Value: The Case
of Rock Music.” Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 35,
n° 1, p. 85–102.
Reinstein, D.A., and C.M. Snyder. 2005. “The
Influence of Expert Reviews on Consumer
Demand for Experience Goods: A Case Study of
Movie Critics.” Journal of Industrial Economics,
Vol. 53, n° 1, p. 27–53.
Saltzman, J. 2002. “Everyone’s a Critic.” USA Today,
March.
41
Scott, W.R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Serroy, J. 1994. “Le huitième art.” In Critiquer la
critique ? Culture et médias, l’impossible mariage
de raison, J.L. Roux, ed. Grenoble: Ellug, p. 113–
120.
Sgard, J. 1994. “La critique est aisée.” In Critiquer la
critique ? Culture et médias, l’impossible mariage de
raison, J.L. Roux, ed. Grenoble: Ellug, p. 13–22.
Shrum, W. 1991. “Critics and Publics: Cultural
Mediation in Highbrow and Popular Performing
Arts.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97, n° 2,
p. 347–375.
Shrum, W. 1996. Fringe and Fortune: The Role of
Critics in High and Popular Art. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Sochay, S. 1994. “Predicting the Performances of
Motion Pictures.” Journal of Media Economics,
Vol. 7, n° 4, p. 1–20.
Van Rees, C.J. 1983. “How a Literary Work Becomes
a Masterpiece: On the Threefold Selection
Practised by Literary Criticism.” Poetics, Vol. 12,
n° 4/5, p. 397–417.
Van Rees, K., and J. Vermunt. 1996. “Event History
Analysis of Authors’ Reputation: Effects of Critics’
Attention on Debutants’ Careers.” Poetics, Vol. 23,
n° 3, p. 317–333.
Vézina, R. 1997. “‘One of the Best Movies of the
Year!…’: An Experiment on the Influence of
Critics’ Recommendations on Consumers.” In
Proceedings of 26th EMAC Conference, Vol. 3, 20–
23 May, Warwick, p. 1300–1312.
Wijnberg, N.M., and G. Gemser. 2000. “Adding
Value to Innovation: Impressionism and the Trans-
formation of the Selection System in Visual Arts.”
Organization Science, Vol. 11, n° 3, p. 323–329.
Wyatt, O.W., and D.P. Badger. 1984. “How Reviews
Affect Interest in and Evaluation of Films.”
Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 61, n° 4, p. 874–878.
Wyatt, O.W., and D.P. Badger. 1990. “Effects of
Information and Evaluation in Film Criticism.”
Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 67, n° 2, p. 359–368.
Zuckerman, E.W., and T.-Y. Kim. 2003. “The Critical
Trade-off: Identity Assignment and Box-Office
Success in the Feature Film Industry.” Industrial
and Corporate Change, Vol. 12, n° 1, p. 27–67.

42 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT

View publication stats