Jia Lissa
Editor’s note: This is the ninth chapter of “A Producer’s Path,” an ongoing column for IndieWire’s Future of Filmmaking from independent producer Daren Smith. Read previous chapters here.
In the high-stakes world of independent film, there is a pervasive, ego-driven fallacy that suggests if you simply secure enough screens, the audience will follow. It is a logic that has claimed the budgets of countless projects, turning potential successes into cautionary tales. On our last two independent theatrical releases, we fell into this trap. We operated under the assumption that a robust footprint—nearly 400 screens—paired with a reliable distribution partner and downstream guarantees, constituted a winning strategy.
We were wrong. When opening weekend arrived, the seats remained hauntingly empty. That strategic miscalculation cost us six figures. It was a painful, expensive lesson in the difference between supply and demand. In the film industry, systems are merely plumbing; they do not create the outcomes you desire, they only make it easier for those outcomes to emerge naturally. If you build a vast network of pipes, switches, and pumps in an area with only a trickle of demand, the effort is not just wasted—it is catastrophic.
The MOVIE Framework: Right-Sizing for Reality
In the “Implement Systems” phase of the MOVIE framework, the primary objective is to align your system’s capacity with the actual, verified demand of the marketplace. Too many producers mistakenly try to force the demand to fit the system. They believe that if they secure a wide theatrical release, the sheer presence of the film in multiplexes will generate interest.
This is backward. Distribution does not create an audience; distribution exists to supply the demand that already exists. A firehose of supply is useless if there is no one standing in the path with a cup. When we analyze the current box office, the divide is clear: theaters with a per-screen average (PSA) of $5,000 or more are thriving, while those falling below $1,500 are effectively burning money.
The screen is merely an empty pipe. It is not an audience. A theater booking your film is not an audience. The audience is the singular entity that dictates demand, and until a ticket is purchased, you are simply operating an empty, expensive piece of infrastructure.
A Chronology of the $100,000 Mistake
To understand the financial implications of this, one must look at the data from our 2024 releases, The Carpenter and Faith of Angels. According to Box Office Mojo, The Carpenter grossed $247,568, while Faith of Angels reached $570,027.
At an average 2024 ticket price of $11.31, these figures represent roughly 21,889 and 50,400 tickets sold, respectively. On the surface, these numbers appear respectable. However, the profit realization depends entirely on the efficiency of the distribution system used to capture those viewers.
The Over-Engineered Approach
We deployed our films across 400 screens. With the cost of booking and maintaining these prints, we essentially spent $120,000 on "screen costs" that were largely unnecessary. By analyzing the capacity, we found that we were running at roughly 4% capacity across 12 showtimes per weekend. We were essentially paying to show our movie to empty rooms.
- The Math: 28,800 tickets sold across 400 screens resulted in a box office of $345,600.
- The Revenue Split: After the theater’s ~55% cut and a 15% distributor fee, the producer net was a paltry $12,192.
- The Result: This figure does not even account for the significant marketing expenditure required to drive those initial ticket sales.
The Right-Sized Alternative
If we had limited our release to 50 high-performing screens—targeting the same 28,800 customers—the outcome changes drastically. By concentrating the audience, we would have achieved:
- Higher Capacity: Moving from 4% to 32% occupancy.
- Stronger PSA: The per-screen average jumps from $864 to $6,912, far exceeding the industry’s "healthy" threshold.
- The Profitability Shift: The producer net increases from $12,192 to $117,192.
By simply "right-sizing" the system, we would have seen nearly 10 times the profit from the exact same number of ticket holders. Furthermore, by maintaining a high PSA, we would have earned a second-week expansion, allowing word of mouth to build organically rather than being pulled from theaters due to a "flop" status.
Supporting Data: Why "More" is Often "Less"
The industry often equates "wide release" with "success." However, the data suggests that for independent films, the "wide" strategy is often a fast track to oblivion. A theater at 20% capacity is perceived as a failure, which leads to immediate removal from the schedule. A limited run at 80% capacity is perceived as a "hot" title, creating urgency and scarcity.
When a producer forces a film into 400 theaters that cannot support it, they are not creating buzz; they are creating the conditions for a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. When the box office report comes out on Monday, the low per-screen average flags the film as a poor performer to the entire industry, effectively killing its chances for long-term play or favorable streaming acquisition terms.
Implications for Future Filmmaking
If you are a producer, you must shift your mindset from "distribution" as a goal to "demand fulfillment" as a strategy.
1. Spend Close to the Buying Decision
Marketing in the modern era is often wasted on vanity metrics—social media impressions or "likes" that do not correlate to ticket sales. An ad on a social platform is like dropping a water balloon in a desert; it evaporates long before it reaches the customer. Conversely, purchasing ads directly within the ticketing apps of major cinema circuits ensures your marketing reaches the consumer exactly when they are looking for a movie to see.
2. Understand Your Pipes
Every distributor, booker, and theater circuit has their own agenda, which is rarely aligned with the independent filmmaker’s bottom line. Studios use their leverage to force screen counts, effectively bullying theaters into prioritizing their content. As an independent, you don’t have that leverage. You are renting their pipes. You must understand the licensing fees, the terms, and the order of payment. A service provider is a vendor, not a partner; treat them with the professional scrutiny that implies.
3. The Path to Ownership
Building your own distribution system is, in the deepest sense, an act of ownership. It requires the courage to say "no" to vanity screen counts and "yes" to strategic, data-driven releases. It requires the discipline to look at a market and ask, "Where is the thirst?" rather than, "How much water can I pump into this room?"
Conclusion: The New Paradigm
The gatekeepers of the traditional studio system have optimized their infrastructure for their own specific scale, which is fundamentally incompatible with the needs of the independent filmmaker. When we blindly copy their strategies, we lose.
The future of independent film does not lie in imitating the massive, over-supplied releases of the conglomerates. It lies in the precision of the reach. It lies in recognizing that while we cannot create thirst, we can certainly find those who are already thirsty and ensure they have a cup in their hand.
By right-sizing our systems to the reality of the marketplace, we stop burning capital on empty seats and start building sustainable, profitable, and meaningful careers. The pipes don’t create the water—they only carry it. If you build them with intention and point them toward those who are already searching for your story, you will find that you no longer need to beg for permission to be heard. You will have built a system that earns its own way, one ticket at a time.
Daren Smith is the founder of Craftsman Films and managing member of Producer Fund I. His latest film, “Brotherhood: A Cinematic Musical,” opens in theaters October 2. All artwork for the Producer’s Path series is created by Steven de Groot.
Nana Wu
Lina Hope
