Tournament Rituals in the Evolution of Fields: the Case of the Grammy Awards

Anand, N.; Watson, Mary R.

doi:10.5465/20159560

Cited by 160 publications

(257 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

255

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Introduced in 1958 in the United States, the Grammy had the intention of awarding those artists who were recognized as important contributors to the music field by musicians themselves. As a result, the Grammy not always confirmed the popular acceptance (Anand & Watson, 2004;Schmutz, 2005). In contrast, the first MPB Festival tried to construct their criteria retrospectively in order to please the public taste (Ribeiro, 2003, p. 91).…”

Section: Festivals: Origins Structure Impact Development Role Orimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The delegation of the aesthetic judgment to third-parties plays also an important role in legitimating the aesthetic values, for a market-only valuation robs the art piece its status of exclusivity (DiMaggio, 1982 in reference to the Weberian idea of separation of value spheres). As a result, we end up with an imagery of art fields highly mediated by taste-makers: awards, ratings and rankings are attempts to signal quality, allocation criteria and trends (Anand & Watson, 2004;Schmutz, 2005). Mouzelis (1995) argues that a sociological analysis should exhaust three dimensions of a given phenomena: the macro structure where it is embedded, the actors' interests and their respective cognitive schemata and finally the immediate interaction pattern among the actors.…”

Section: The Role Of Interactions and Conflicts In Explaining Institumentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Organizational design for institutional change: the case of MPB Festivals, 1960 to 1968

Kirschbaum

2006

BAR, Braz. Adm. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central concern in neo-institutional research is the genesis of new organizational fields. This article explores the emergence of the MPB (Brazilian Popular Music) field in tandem with the organization of music festivals in the sixties. The festivals were instrumental in combining musicians, critics and the audience in a forum relatively buffered from the music industry influence. This interaction supported the introduction and diffusion of new influences in the popular music field, and at the same time, it consecrated the category MPB as a high-brow art form. The festivals' design provoked two unintended consequences: the conflict between musicians and the audience, and between musicians and the jury. While several musicians strived to conquer autonomy for their creative activity, the audience claimed its supremacy. As a result, musicians exerted pressure on the jury to buffer the aesthetical criteria from the audience. It concludes with a critical appraisal of the role of festivals in the evolution of the MPB field.

show abstract

Section: Festivals: Origins Structure Impact Development Role Orimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Role Of Interactions and Conflicts In Explaining Institumentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational design for institutional change: the case of MPB Festivals, 1960 to 1968

Kirschbaum

2006

BAR, Braz. Adm. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Winning -or being nominated forawards is considered to be an important quality signal contributing to reputation (Anand and Watson, 2004), the effects of which on performance in the film industry have been studied before (Gemser, Leenders and Wijnberg, 2008). The Dutch Film Festival is the most important film festival in the Netherlands, and awards that are won at this festival are considered to contribute to peer reputation since the members of the jury are fellow filmmakers.…”

Section: Peer Reputationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These signals include contests (Rao, 1994), awards (Anand and Watson, 2004;Gemser, Leenders and Wijnberg, 2008) reviews (Basuroy, Chatterjee and Ravid, 2003;Eliashberg and Shugan, 1997), ratings (Podolny, 1993), and even the mere volume of media attention (Pollock and Rindova, 2003;Rindova, Petkova and Kotha, 2007).…”

Section: Reputation and Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nascent ventures competing for start-up capital: Matching reputations and investors

Ebbers

Wijnberg

2012

Journal of Business Venturing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While earlier studies focused on the general effects of corporate or individual reputations on attracting investment capital, a major contribution of this study is to distinguish between different types of reputations and different types of investors, and then analyze how particular types of reputations have an effect on particular types of investors. We do this by applying selection system theory, which is an approach to understanding competitive processes by focusing on the identity of the decision makers whose evaluations determine the outcome of these competitive processes. The three basic types of selectors are: market selectors, peer selectors and expert selectors.This tripartite classification allows us to categorize types of reputations on the basis of their sources. First, if a reputation is based on success in consumer markets, for example (end-) consumers' quality perceptions of a specific brand of shampoo, it can be linked to market selection. Second, a reputation type can be linked to expert selection if it originates from expert judgments. An example is a credit rating agency 4 such as Moody's. Third, if the reputation is based upon success among peers, for example winning an award at the 'Oscars' where the jury largely consists of other filmmakers, it can be linked to peer selection.At the same time types of investors can be categorized by considering both the characteristics and the goals of the investors making the investment decisions. First, if investors back a venture because they primarily hope that many consumers will like and buy the product they can be identified as market selectors. Second, if investors are (industry) peers of the founding members of the new venture they can be identified as peer selectors. Third, if they are neither market nor peer selectors they can be categorized as expert selectors. This tripartite categorization opens the way to the main argument of this paper: nascent organizations will be more successful in attracting investment capital from an investor if their founding members have performance-based reputations of a type that matches the type of the investor.In the empirical section of this paper we test this argument by studying the impact of the reputations of producers and directors on the investment decisions of the three main investors in the Dutch film industry: distributors, television broadcasters and the Film Fund. We find support for our main theoretical argument, IntroductionAn adequate resource base (Brush, Greene, Hart and Haller, 1993;Davidson and Honig, 2003;Parker and van Praag, 2006), and especially adequate financing Earlier studies applied selection system theory to study competition in product markets. For example, how winning or being nominated for an award impacts box office revenues of mainstream or art-house films (Gemser et al., 2008). Employing selection system theory to better understand the financing stage further tests the usefulness of this framework and also extends the theory itself.Our empirical setting is the Dutch film industr...

show abstract

“…Well-established and broadly publicized events and awards in culture industries, including for example the Oscar (motion pictures), Grammy (music), Tony (theatre) and Emmy (television) events and awards, have become global cultural icons, signifying popular and critical success (Caves 2000;Anand & Watson 2004). Events and award ceremonies are occasions for the industry to meet and celebrate themselves and their products (Ruling & Strandgaard Pedersen 2010), building identities (Anand & Watson 2004) and creating distinctions and classifications (DiMaggio 1987;Strandgaard Pedersen & Dobbin 1997) through nominations and awards giving (Mezias et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Film Festivals: For the Benefit of Whom?

Pedersen¹,

Mazza²

2011

Cult. Unbound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Film festivals have become a widespread phenomenon over the last fifty years and are leading events establishing the reputation of film professionals and constitute a well-established field in itself. Studying the cities of Copenhagen and Rome the authors are asking why the public authorities of these cities establish their own film festivals in an already saturated field of international film festivals? The focus is on the strategic responses and work made by two late adopters of film festivals -Copenhagen and Rome and their international film festivals, CIFF and 'Festa del Cinema di Roma' (FCR). The comparative case study is based on qualitative data and methods. It investigates how the two festivals establish, legitimate and position themselves within the existing, institutionalised field of international film festivals. Combining the classical work on early and late adopters in the diffusion of ideas and practices (Tolbert & Zucker 1983) with forms of legitimacy (Suchman 1995) and institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby 2006), it is demonstrated how different and sometimes conflicting demands from various stakeholders, like public authorities and the film industry, have shaped the frames used to position and legitimize the film festivals.

show abstract

Tournament Rituals in the Evolution of Fields: the Case of the Grammy Awards

Cited by 160 publications

References 28 publications

Organizational design for institutional change: the case of MPB Festivals, 1960 to 1968

Organizational design for institutional change: the case of MPB Festivals, 1960 to 1968

Nascent ventures competing for start-up capital: Matching reputations and investors

International Film Festivals: For the Benefit of Whom?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About