AHP-based Investment Decision Framework for the Film Industry

1. Introduction

The Korean film industry has grown impressively in recent years, shaped by the strategic decisions of various investors. Ilshin Investment’s pioneering investment in the movie Ginkgo Bed led to a wider variety of films produced (Korea Venture Capital Association, 2021), which in turn promoted investment and international distribution of Korean films by various investors such as CJ ENM. Investors and film distributors now occupy pivotal positions in the contemporary film sector in Korea. As such, the decisions of various stakeholders, including investors and distributors, play an important role in fostering the diversification and growth of Korean cinema.

In 2024, the annual budget of the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism’s (hereafter MCST) was set at 6.96 trillion Korean Won (hereafter KRW). It provided 1.74 trillion KRW to the domestic content market by allocating 25 billion KRW to the Video Content Investment Fund and 340 billion KRW to the K-Content Fund (Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, 2024). In particular, 10 billion KRW was newly allocated to fostering the development of professionals in Over-The-Top (hereafter OTT) services and broadcast video content.

Against this background, the primary objective of this study is to explore the various attributes of the creative industries and to present a decision-making methodology with a particular focus on the film industry. The study will address the following research questions: “What criteria do investors value when evaluating strategic choices in balancing innovative creativity with economic viability?” The research aims to achieve the following objectives:

• ① identify key elements shaping investment choices in film production.
• ② assess how various funding approaches generate monetary returns.
• ③ examine investment management practices across different market contexts.
• ④ develop practical recommendations applicable to multiple creative sectors.

Section 2 provides a literature review, focusing on decision-making frameworks within creative industries like film-making and examining various film funding mechanisms. Section 3 outlines the applied research methodology, which details the use of a questionnaire based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Section 4 presents the research findings, and Section 5 explores the implications and research constraints. Finally, Section 6 offers the overall conclusions and the insights derived from the study.

This study seeks to comprehend the intricate decision-making process within the film industry, thereby offering insights that will inform the development of future investment strategies and policies. This process enables a systematic evaluation and prioritization of a vast array of criteria.

2. Literature Review

1) Creative and Film Industries

Cunningham (2002) categorized the creative industries to include a spectrum from visual media and digital content to traditional art forms and design disciplines. Within these varied creative fields, cinema stands out as a uniquely complex and multifaceted business environment. Caves (2002) provides a thorough examination of the creative industries, including films, emphasizing the unique economic attributes that set these sectors apart from traditional industries. This insight is especially valuable for comprehending the global nature of the film sector and the various stakeholders involved in transforming a concept into a film.

<Table 1>

Summary of Prior Research

3. Research Methodology

1) Analytical Hierarchy Process

It is difficult to make complex decisions in an organized and effective manner. Every decision has many criteria to consider, and determining the importance and priority of the factors is even more challenging. However, prioritization is important because each factor has its own advantages and disadvantages, and one needs to reach the best conclusion under the circumstances.

Thomas Saaty’s Analytical Hierarchy Process (hereafter AHP) methodology is a structured decision-making approach that derives priorities by comparing mutually exclusive alternatives in pairs. The fundamental assumption underlying this methodology is that humans approach decision-making in a step-by-step or hierarchical manner when faced with complex problems involving multiple evaluation criteria. The advantages of this methodology include a hierarchical structure, measurability of intangibles, consistency, sensitivity analysis, and collective decision-making. In creative industries, such as film, this methodology provides a valuable framework for guiding investment decisions on projects.

Subject matter experts assign a score to each criterion using a scale from 1-9, which is subsequently compared in pairs to establish a structured framework for judgment. This assists venture capitalists in making important decisions by identifying the factors that should be prioritized within the overall context.

A pairwise comparison is a decision-making method used to determine which of two options should be assigned greater importance. AHP structures a complex process into a simplified balance sheet comparison. By organizing the various weights and alternatives involved in the investment decision, this study turns them into comparative factors. These factors are then systematically evaluated against one another, making it easier to draw conclusions for informed and effective decision-making.

To carry out a full analysis, it is necessary to organize the options for comparing each criterion. One first needs to normalize the matrix. Upon normalization, the local priority weight of each criterion is obtained by averaging the values in all rows. The final sum represents the importance of an individual criterion. While this process helps determine prioritization, an overall statistic is needed to determine the overall importance of a factor within the overall structure of each sub-criterion. To ensure the consistency of pairwise comparisons in the matrix, the Consistency Ratio (hereafter CR) is calculated <Table 2>.

<Table 2>

Saaty’s Random Index Table

Saaty recommended establishing the threshold at 0.10. If the CR exceeds this threshold, the reliability of the judgment comes into question. Decision makers adjust their judgments until the CR falls below 0.10.

Once the consistency tests are performed, AHP provides a decision range that can be applied to each component. This enables decision-makers to prioritize alternatives using a structured and mathematically sound process.

2) Research Design

The aim of this study is to examine the factors influencing investment decisions in the film sector by surveying a range of film investors, including venture capitalists, private equity investors, and other stakeholders from the creative industries.

The primary objectives of this study are to:

• ① gain expert insights into the practical and professional perspectives of film investors within the film industry.
• ② identify the key factors that film investors consider when evaluating film projects to gain a deeper understanding of the investment decision-making process.
• ③ explain contemporary investment trends and prospective outlooks with respect to the film industry through responses from investors.
• ④ facilitate the development of an investment decision-making framework for the film industry and provide a foundation for future related research.
• ⑤ provide insights into film investment criteria for film production companies or creators aiming to attract investment.

Each factor has been explored in a variety of studies, often in overlapping contexts rather than as stand-alone components.

For Filmmakers, Caves (2002) discusses star power, which extends beyond actors to overall marketability, and Ravid (1999) examines director reputation in relation to project risk. In Market Landscape, McQuail (2010) emphasizes sociocultural influences, and Elberse and Anand (2007) analyze the impact of release timing on financial performance. For Financial Considerations, Ravid (1999) examines return on investment and Goettler and Leslie (2005) examine investment structure.

This study builds on the premise of these factors and focuses on individual factors rather than treating them collectively to ensure a holistic approach to analyzing film investment.

(1) Filmmakers

• ① Actors: Star power and marketability, encompassing their standing in the industry, professional background, demographic factors, devoted following, and recent commercial track record (Caves, 2002).
• ② Directors: Assessment of the director’s reputation, past work experience and box office success, and expertise of cinematic approaches (Ravid, 1999).
• ③ Track Records: The production company’s past successes and awards help predict the likelihood of success for future projects (Hadida, 2009).

(2) Film

• ① Genre: The market viability of different film types such as romantic, suspense, comedic works shapes commercial prospects, reflecting viewer preferences and market dynamics (Desai & Basuroy, 2005).
• ② Script Quality: The overall quality of the screenplay, including stories originality, narrative structure, attractive characters, has a significant impact on the potential success and marketability of film (Krishnamurthy, 2011).
• ③ Production Budget: The comprehensive expenses involved in film creation, covering talent compensation, physical production elements, visual innovations, finishing work, and marketing initiatives (Basuroy, Desai, & Talukdar, 2006).
• ④ Film Style: The distinctive visual and sonic qualities, encompassing directorial approaches, technical presentation methods (dimensional effects), structural choices, and sonic landscapes (Basuroy, Chatterjee, & Ravid, 2003).

(3) Market Landscape

• ① Socio-cultural Context: Socio-cultural effects connected to the film theme or contents, such as contemporary issues, societal movements and governmental dynamics (McQuail, 2010).
• ② Timing of Release: Decisions about the best time to release a film depend on a comprehensive analysis of the competitive landscape, including the genre, size, and target audience of other films currently in the market (Elberse & Anand, 2007).
• ③ Previous Audience Preferences: Past audience behaviors, preferred narrative types, and presentation methods provides key data about successful audience engagement and revenue generation (Desai & Basuroy, 2005).

(4) Financial Considerations

• ① Return on Investment: The expected return ratio to investment, a measure of the financial performance of a film project (Ravid, 1999).
• ② Investment Structure: Key aspects of financial agreements, including capital contribution levels, profit distribution mechanisms, and control allocations (Goettler & Leslie, 2005).
• ③ Risk Management: A strategy for identifying and managing various risks that may arise during the production and distribution of a film, including production delays, budget overruns, and box office failure (Stanton, 2017).
• ④ Exit Strategy: Strategic approaches for investment recovery, typically through distribution arrangements such as sale of distribution rights, box office sales revenue, or monetization of intellectual property associated with the film (Vogel, 2020).

The AHP model employed here consists of four major criteria: Filmmakers, Film, Market Landscape, and Financial Considerations (B1∼B4). The model subdivides these into fourteen sub-criterion (C1∼C14) which are placed under the main criteria.

<Table 3>

Adapted AHP Scale

<Figure 1>

AHP Model of the Factors Influencing Film Investment DecisionsSource: Own

While Saaty (1980) utilizes a nine-point scale, this research simplified the scale by removing the intermediate values (2, 4, 6, and 8). This modification was made to enhance participant engagement and to reduce possible fatigue during the response process, thus lowering the likelihood of inconsistent responses. Spice Logic’s specialized AHP software was used to analyze the collected responses.

3) Data Acquisition

The survey was carried out with a sample of Korean film investors, comprising venture capitalists investing in the Korean film industry, professional investors working within the film sector, and investors focusing on the wider creative industries. The survey gathered basic demographic information from participants, including gender, age, and the specific industry in which they are employed. Additionally, questions on how long the respondents have been in the industry and how many films they have invested in were also included in the survey. The survey was targeted at Korean-speaking respondents, and the responses were collected through an online survey from October 16th to November 4th, 2024. Details of the respondents are presented in <Table 4> and <Table 5>.

<Table 4>

Demographics of Survey Participants

<Table 5>

Demographics of Survey Participants (Consistency Ratio < 0.20)

First, based on the replies from the survey respondents, they were categorized according to whether they belonged to the film industry, creative industry, or other industries. The comparative assessment framework analyzed relationships between main categories and their respective sub-criteria. The primary elements were organized to capture both internal project factors and external market influences, with brief explanations provided to survey participants. The demographic information of the respondents is shown in <Table 4>.

Demographics of the survey participants reveal:

• ① a strong representation from film and creative industries (87.82%).
• ② all currently engaged in the investment industry.
• ③ all have been or are currently involved in Korean cinema funding projects.
• ④ substantial industry experience exceeding three years (84.35%).

4. Results and Analysis

Following Pauer et al. (2016) and Wedley (1993), this study employed a 0.20 consistency threshold. This higher acceptance level was adopted due to practical constraints in providing comprehensive training to each respondent regarding complex comparison procedures. A total of 115 participants completed the survey, with 41 of them meeting the 0.20 consistency threshold.

• Based on the survey results:
• ① Age Distribution: Most participants are aged 40-49 (36.58%), followed by 50-59 (26.83%).
• ② Gender: The gender distribution is slightly skewed towards males (53.66%) compared to females (46.34%).
• ③ Industry Representation: Nearly half of the participants are from sectors within the creative industry other than film (48.78%), while 43.90% are from the film sector specifically. 7.32% belongs to other industries.
• ④ Career Years: A significant number of participants have 3-6 years (39.02%) or over 10 years (31.71%) of experience.
• ⑤ Number of Film Investment Projects: 51.22% have invested in less than 3 films. 9.76% have been involved in more than 10 film projects.

1) Film Sector in Creative Industries

This section analyzes survey responses from participants involved in the film sector. There were a total of eighteen participants who were identified as currently working in the film sector, including venture capitalists and stakeholders in the film sector. The survey responses suggest that financial factors served as the key determinant in investment decisions, revealing consistent patterns throughout the decision-making process. The results by main criteria and sub-criteria are presented in <Table 6>.

<Table 6>

Focusing on the Film Sector’s Ranking of Main and Sub-criteria

2) Other Sector in Creative Industries

The priorities of investors from other creative industries, who do not specialize in film, are presented in <Table 7>. This study includes some investors who do not specialize in film, and this study aims to use these findings to propose strategies to investors in other areas of the creative industries. Therefore, this research analyzed the responses of the twenty other creative industry investors separately. This analysis will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the priorities of investors across the creative industries.

<Table 7>

Focusing on Other Sectors Ranking of Main and Sub-criteria

In other sectors, Financial Considerations (40.1%) is the highest priority, with Exit Strategy ranked first (0.123909) and Return on Investment third globally (0.100651). Market Landscape (25.4%) is also significant, particularly Socio-cultural Context (0.107442, ranked second globally) and Previous Audience Preferences (0.075184%, ranked sixth). Filmmakers (18.4%) follows, with Actors (0.067712, ranked eighth globally) and Track Record (0.064216, ranked ninth) being key factors. Films (16.1%) prioritize Script Quality (0.060053, ranked tenth globally), while Genre (0.030912, ranked thirteenth) and Film Style (0.023989, ranked fourteenth) are considered less important.

According to <Table 6>, the film sector prioritizes Financial Considerations (37.9%), with Return on Investment ranked first globally (0.140988), followed by Risk Management and Investment Structure. Filmmakers (26.1%) are the second priority, with Actors and Track Record being most influential. Films (18.6%) emphasize Production Budget and Script Quality, while creative factors like Genre and Film Style are less important. Market Landscape (17.4%) is the least prioritized, but Previous Audience Preferences and Timing of Release are still important.

According to <Table 8>, in both sectors, Return on Investment and Exit Strategy are important, with Return on Investment ranking highest in the film sector (0.140988) and Exit Strategy topping other sectors (0.123909). Actors are also highly prioritized in both sectors, ranking second in the film sector (0.098136) and eighth globally in other sectors (0.067712). Risk Management holds significant importance in both sectors, ranking fourth in the film sector (0.085654) and other sectors (0.096641). Creative factors like Genre and Film Style are less prioritized in both sectors, with Genre ranking lowest globally in both (0.02883 and 0.030912, respectively).

<Table 8>

Comparison of Global Weights

3) Aggregated Results

The aggregated results consisted of forty-one responses from people in the film sector, non-film sector in creative industries, and non-creative industries. By compiling and analyzing viewpoints from diverse domains, this study provides a more comprehensive understanding of the film sectors and the creative industries as a whole. The findings highlight distinctive investing approaches among various investor segments, contributing to the development of targeted financing strategies for creative industries.

According to <Table 9>, the aggregated ranking highlights Financial Considerations (37.8%) as the top priority, with Return on Investment globally ranked first (0.111132). Filmmakers (23.2%) is the second priority, driven by the importance of Track Record (0.0812) and Actors (0.082128), while Directors (0.068672) are ranked lower. Market Landscape (21.2%) is third, with Socio-cultural Context (0.07632) and Previous Audience Preferences (0.07102) being important. Film (17.8%) is the fourth priority, where Production Budget (0.058384) and Script Quality (0.057494) are the more important sub-criteria, while Genre (0.031862) and Film Style (0.03026) carry less weight.

<Table 9>

Aggregated Ranking of Main and Sub-Criteria

5. Discussion

As suggested by <Table 9>, the aggregated ranking shows a complex decision-making structure in cinema investment, where Financial Considerations emerges as the top major criterion but must be balanced with artistic and market elements. Return on Investment and Exit Strategy emerge as the top two sub-criteria, highlighting investors’ dual focus on risk reduction and monetary returns.

Second, filmmakers are ranked as the second most important major criterion, highlighting the crucial role of human talent in the outcome of a project. The data reveals that Actors and Track Record are ranked as the fourth and fifth most important sub-criteria, highlighting the impact of star appeal and past performance on success. Directors received lower rankings, indicating that while their expertise is important, investor confidence tends to be more influenced by the marketability of performers.

This suggests that filmmakers should adopt a data-driven approach to demonstrate the marketability based on Actors and Track Record over creative leadership. For instance, Na Hong-jin’s “The Chaser” (2008), a debut feature film based on a true story, leveraged the star power of actors Kim Yun-seok and Ha Jung-woo. Despite a modest production budget of 2.6 billion KRW, the film surpassed 5 million viewers, demonstrating how renowned actors can elevate a first-time director’s work. Similarly, Yeon Sang-ho’s “Train to Busan” (2016), his first live-action film distributed by Next Entertainment World, exemplifies how a relatively unknown director can achieve global recognition through distributor track records, robust studio marketing and international festival exposure, ultimately becoming a global zombie film phenomenon. Hwang Dong-hyuk’s “Squid Game” (2021), his first television series, achieved global acclaim through a combination of compelling storytelling and Netflix’s global distribution platform, illustrating how emerging talent can break through industry barriers with strategic partnerships and powerful production track records.

Third, market landscape ranks third, revealing how external factors influence investment decisions. Previous Audience Preferences hold considerable weight, suggesting that historical viewing trends inform decisions, though they are ranked below financial and talent-related criteria. Although the Film category ranks last among major criteria, its components offer valuable insights into content evaluation.

These findings provide crucial insights for industry stakeholders. Despite the artistic nature of filmmaking, investors, particularly VCs, aim to minimize risks while managing uncertainty. This is achieved through structured financial models, diversified revenue streams (e.g., Internet Protocol Television, OTT), and careful analysis of market trends. In the film industry context, VCs emphasize the marketability of actors and the track record of filmmakers, using these as key indicators of a project’s financial potential. By adopting a data-driven approach, filmmakers can align their proposals with investors’ needs, ultimately promoting sustainable growth within the Korean film industry. In addition, this industrial approach may accelerate due to the post COVID-19 shift in distribution channels.

6. Conclusions

This study analyzes investment decision-making in the film industry, with a particular focus on venture investments. First, financial structure plays a critical role, necessitating clear revenue models and transparent profit-sharing mechanisms due to the industry’s diverse revenue streams. Second, the expertise of key filmmakers, including actors and directors, is also a significant factor. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, this study evaluate the capabilities of production teams, considering their industry networks, past achievements, and expertise.

Third, the study indicates that market trend is also the important element considering investment decision process, necessitating thorough analysis of consumer preferences, competitive positioning, and distribution strategies, with insights from similar projects informing unique market advantages.

The limitations of this study is that Financial Considerations may act as preconditions or underlying factors for Filmmakers, Films, and the Market Landscape, which may lead to causal effects in expert responses. For instance, producers can be a key of risk management. This means that the interactions between these factors may not be fully captured, limiting our understanding of the overall investment climate. However, despite these limitations, the findings still have practical implications as investment decisions are made in the aggregated, rather than in isolated.

Additionally, according to Korea Film Council’s notice about video specialized investment funds (2024), out of 25 film-specialized investment funds established under the Korea Fund of Funds, only 12 funds are currently active and under management as of October 2024, excluding funds that have completed their investment period. This represents approximately 1% of the 938 are active Korea Fund of Funds subsidiary funds (Korea Venture Investment Corp, 2024). This limited sample potentially introduces individualized decision-making processes that may overshadow broader film investment trends. Nevertheless, the findings retain practical significance, given that investment decisions are made holistically, with factors being considered in combination rather than isolation. Recent changes in theatrical distribution post COVID-19 and the diversification of distribution channels also have the possibility of influencing investment criteria.

In addition, the relevance of the findings extend across creative sectors. As boundaries between film, television, music, advertising, and digital content continue to blur, these investment principles provide valuable guidance for the wider creative economy. In addition, the influence of technological advancements and shifting consumer behavior patterns highlights the necessity for adaptive strategies to sustain competitive advantages across creative industries.

Future research may be beneficial in the following areas. First, there is room for more extensive qualitative research, including in-depth investor interviews, case studies, and observations of the investment decision process. Second, the interactions between various investment factors may be further explored to create more comprehensive performance models. Third, studying the changing market environment is essential, particularly in relation to consumer behavior shifts and new revenue models in the platform era. Fourth, the recent emergence of OTT platforms has blurred the lines between film and other media formats, making it important to consider films that are suitable for these platforms rather than strictly adhering to the traditional notion future research needs to examine of theatrical release. Therefore, it is important for future research to examine investment decision-making factors specific to the OTT environment, such as media compatibility, programming strategy, and platform suitability. Such an expansion of scope could contribute to the development of a unified investment decision model by identifying commonalities and differences across creative sectors, which would ultimately benefit both investors and industry professionals.

In conclusion, as creative industries continue to transform and evolve, investment opportunities are expanding. However, successful investment in these industries necessitate a multifaceted approach that considers financial factors, key personnel, and the market environment. Further research will offer a deeper understanding of the investment decision-making process in the creative industries, including the film sector, helping both investors and producers navigate the intricate landscape of the creative industry.

Acknowledgments

This paper is a substantially revised version based upon the thesis submitted by Sumin Lee in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. in International Studies at Korea University. Professor J.H. Kim’s contribution to this work was supported by a Korea University Grant (K2405821).

References

• Altunok, T., Ozgur, O., Yiğit, K., & Recai, Y. (2010). Comparative Analysis of Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods for Postgraduate Student Selection. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 10, 1-15.
• Basuroy, S., Chatterjee, S., & Ravid, S. (2003). How Critical Are Critical Reviews? The Box Office Effects of Film Critics, Star Power, and Budgets. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 103-117. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.4.103.18692]
• Basuroy, S., Desai, K., & Talukdar, D. (2006). An Empirical Investigation of Signaling in the Motion Picture Industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 287-295. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.2.287]
• Caves, R. E. (2002). Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Cunningham, S. (2002). From Cultural to Creative Industries: Theory, Industry and Policy Implications. Media International Australia, 102(1), 54-65. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X0210200107]
• Desai, K. K., & Basuroy, S. (2005). Interactive Influence of Genre Familiarity, Star Power, and Critics’ Reviewsin the Cultural Goods Industry: The case of motion pictures. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 203-223. [https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20055]
• Elberse, A., & Anand, B. (2007). The Effectiveness of Pre-Release Advertising for Motion Pictures: An empirical investigation using a simulated market. Information Economics and Policy, 19(3-4), 319-343. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2007.06.003]
• Eliashberg, J., Elberse, A., & M. A. Leenders (2006). The Motion Picture Industry: Critical issues in practice, current research, and new research directions. Marketing Science, 25(6), 638-661. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1050.0177]
• Florida, R. (2003). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
• Goettler, R. L., & Leslie, P. (2005). Co-financing to Manage Risk in the Motion Picture Industry. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 14(2), 231-261. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2005.00041.x]
• Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (1999). What Drives Venture Capital Fundraising? In Baily, M. N., Winson, C., & Reiss, P. C. (Eds.) Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (pp. 149-204). Wanshington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. [https://doi.org/10.3386/w6906]
• Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2001). The Venture Capital Revolution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 145-168. [https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.2.145]
• Hadida, A. L. (2009). Motion Picture Performance: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(3), 297-335. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00240.x]
• Hesmondhalgh, D. (2007). The Cultural Industries. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
• Hirsch, P. M. (1972). Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 639-659. [https://doi.org/10.1086/225192]
• Howkins, J. (2013). The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. London: Penguin Books.
• Hwang, D. H. (Director). (2021). Squid Game [Television Series]. Netflix.
• Im, S. Y., & Lee, Y. C. (2017). A Comparative Case Study of Factors Determining Documentary Films’ Success. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 17(10), 503-517.
• Korea Venture Capital Association. (2021). Venture Capital’s past and future memories. VC Discovery Webzine, 159. https://webzine.kvca.or.kr/202109/?idx=21, (2025.03.29. search)
• Korea Venture Investment Corp. (2024). Market Watch International Edition, 13, 1-55.
• Korean Film Council (2020). Decreased Investment Appeal of the Film Industry from an Investor’s Perspective and Countermeasures. https://www.kofic.or.kr/kofic/business/guid/introVideoInvestment.do
• Korean Film Council. (n.d.). Video Specialized Investment Funds. https://www.kofic.or.kr/kofic/business/guid/introVideoInvestment.do, . (2025.02.04. search)
• Krishnamurthy, N. (2011). Film Review Aggregators and Their Effect on Sustained Box Office Performance. Claremont McKenna College, California, USA.
• Lampel, J., Lant, T., & Shamsie, J. (2000). Balancing Act: Learning from organizing practices in cultural industries. Organization Science, 11(3), 263-269. [https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.3.263.12503]
• Lee S. (2025). Decision-Making Strategies for Venture Investments in Creative Industries: AHP Approach Focused on the Film Sector. Korea University, Seoul: Korea.
• Lee, K. S. (2020). A study on the development plan of the domestic film industry through the window theory of opportunity. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 20(7), 195-202.
• Lee, Y. J., & Shin, H. D. (2013). The Effects of the Existence and Type of Originals on Box-office Performance. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 13(6), 108-115. [https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2013.13.06.108]
• Li, Y., & Mahoney, J. T. (2011). When are Venture Capital Projects Initiated? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(2), 239-254. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.08.001]
• McQuail, D. (2010). Mass Communication Theory (6th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
• Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. (2024). MCST to Prioritize Support for Youth, Vulnerable Groups, Industries, and Regions in 2024. https://www.mcst.go.kr/english/policy/pressView.jsp?pSeq=347, (2025.03.29. search)
• Na, H. J. (Director). (2008). The Chaser [Film]. Showbox.
• Pauer, Frédéric., Katharina Schmidt., Ana Babac, Kathrin Damm, Martin Frank, & J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg. (2016). Comparison of Different Approaches Applied in Analytic Hierarchy Process - An Example of Information Needs of Patients With Rare Diseases. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16(1), 1-11. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0346-8]
• Potts, J. (2011). Creative Industries and Economic Evolution. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857930705]
• Ravid, S. A. (1999). Information, Blockbusters, and Stars: A Study of the Film Industry. The Journal of Business, 72(4), 463-492. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209624]
• Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Stanton, M. J. (2017). A Theoretical Application of Metaphor Research to the Film Industry. East Tennessee State University, Tennessee: USA.
• Tschang, F. T. (2007). Balancing the Tensions Between Rationalization and Creativity in the Video Games Industry. Organization Science, 18(6), 989-1005. [https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0299]
• Vogel, H. L. (2020). Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis (10th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108675499]
• Wedley, William C. (1993). Consistency Prediction for Incomplete AHP Matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4-5), 151-161. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(93)90183-Y]
• Yeon, S. H. (Director). (2016). Train to Busan [Film]. Next Entertainment World.
• Zhang, X. (2012). Venture Capital Investment Selection Decision-Making Base on Fuzzy Theory. Physics Procedia, 25, 1369-1375. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2012.03.248]