As an independent filmmaker, I learned a lot of lessons the hard way after signing a distribution contract for my first feature film. Here are some of the key takeaways from my experience.
Most independent filmmakers have one distribution strategy: premiere at Sundance and sell their film there.
Sundance 2024 had 4,410 submissions and programmed 82 feature films. That’s an acceptance rate of 1.9%. As a comparison, the acceptance rate to Yale is 4.6%. But the Sundance acceptance rate that pertains to you is actually even lower than it seems, when you consider that 5 films were not premieres (e.g., they had already premiered at other major fests, like Cannes), 11 were from Sundance labs, and 60% were not first-time filmmakers. There’s no data available on how many selected films came from the general submission pool — filmmakers who submitted online without any connections.
I was at a Tribeca screening recently and the programmer said that he was happy to finally introduce the film to the world after eagerly following its development for several years. Which festival programmers are following your film’s development?
Okay, let’s say you get into Sundance. Sixty films came seeking buyers in 2024. Sixteen out of those 60 films did sell; seven of which were directed by, starring, or about big names (Soderberg, Fassbender, Schwartzman). By the way, “sold” does not indicate they were made whole; the prices and budgets are not disclosed.
So the point I’m trying to make here is that “Sundance plus sale” is not a distribution strategy. It’s also very hard to develop a distribution strategy today, because it is increasingly difficult to monetize media.
I made a narrative feature film that premiered at the Woodstock Film Festival in 2019. A distributor emailed me after seeing it in Cinequest (ironically, they had not responded when I reached out a couple of months earlier). I released the film with this distributor at the end of 2020. The distributor was acquired by a much larger company and we parted ways under circumstances I am not at liberty to discuss. But here are some thoughts I can share based on my personal experiences.
You don’t need a sales agent to get a distributor. You don’t need a distributor to do TVOD (transactional video on demand) and AVOD (advertising-based video on demand). You can use an aggregator.
The distributor revenue split is 70/30 (70% going to the filmmaker); the aggregator split is 80/20. Some aggregators are starting to charge subscription fees to carry the film or to have control over which platforms it’s on.
You should research your distributor. The Film Collaborative has a distributor report card and Facebook has groups, such as Protect Yourself From Predatory Distributors. But your distributor can be above board and then be purchased by someone else. Often, when one company buys another, they buy the assets and not the debts, meaning, if the first company owes you money, the new one will not pay that debt.
Distributors will not market the film beyond the initial social post when they release it. I don’t care what they tell you during your Zoom meeting. They will not market it. They also won’t pitch it to SVODs individually; they pitch blocks of films. SVOD is streaming video on demand. And no, they don’t have special relationships with TVOD/AVOD for top algorithm placement. The only difference I see is that aggregators only list your film on TVOD and AVOD, whereas distributors also pitch to SVOD, but not very hard. Also, SVOD doesn’t pay nearly as much as you think they do. My friend’s doc sold to Hulu for $8,000, to be paid over 4 years. (And then the distributor was bought up and stopped paying anyway.) My sense is that an aggregator is less likely to go bankrupt or be bought up and stripped for parts than a distributor.
If you do sign with a distributor, there are 2 clauses you need in your distribution agreement:
Bankruptcy clause: Without it, if a distributor declares bankruptcy, your film will be held as an asset while they undergo bankruptcy proceedings, which can take a decade.
Breach of contract clause: If your distributor fails to pay you, your distribution contract becomes void. However, if you want to go with another distributor, they will usually want a termination letter from your first distributor, which they will probably not give you. So hopefully, if you have a breach of contract clause and show that your contract was breached, it should be enough for your new distributor. Another idea is a clause where both parties have the option to withdraw from the contract without a reason.
If you get a minimum guarantee (upfront payment from a distributor), you are very unlikely to see any revenue beyond that. First of all, minimum guarantees are a thing of the past. Secondly, the distributor needs to recoup that money before they start profit sharing with you. They also need to recoup any additional money they spent on your film (trailer, poster, platform placement fees) and that list is endless. Unless you audit them, which costs money, you will not know how much they really spent.
If your distributor is delinquent on payment, first send a breach of contract letter, and if they don’t pay after that, then file a small claims suit and send a PDF of that to their lawyer. Don’t bother speaking to anyone else at the company. Don’t bother hiring a lawyer to write a strongly worded letter. You can’t reach anyone who actually makes the decisions anyway and you have zero leverage aside from a lawsuit. NY’s small claims court is for disputed amounts of up to $10K and it costs about $20 to file.
I don’t have any experience with theatrical, because it costs money to four-wall (where a filmmaker rents a screen and keeps the ticket proceeds) or use a booker to book a theatrical run, to market it, and to travel for Q&As. My friend just did a theatrical run with a narrative feature. It cost him $10K to hire a booker and $10K for the publicist. The booker’s fee guaranteed 5 cities (so, 1 screen per city, 1 week per screen). It ended up playing 8 cities and some theaters held the film longer than 1 week. So he got more from the booker than the minimum. The publicist got some reviews, but not the big 3: New York Times, LA Times, or Variety. Theaters give the filmmaker 25% to 40% of ticket sales. So, a DIY theatrical run is unlikely to break even. My friend believes that the theatrical run did help him land Samuel Goldwyn as their distributor (the booker is acting as a sales agent in that case, taking 10% of the distribution revenue in perpetuity). He believes the buzz the theatrical run generated will also help the film when it streams. And it was extremely gratifying to connect with audiences IRL.
There are other aspects of distribution that I can’t speak to: international sales, educational, broadcast, airplane, etc.
In conclusion, my sense is that small indie films today can make 10% of their budget back over the life of their distribution. The exceptions are specialty docs, like UFO docs, or Gary Hustwit’s docs (Gary is a rare case, whose films do play Sundance and SXSW, but he self-distributes). Distribution also takes a lot of work (deliverables, outreach, marketing, Q&As). When Sundance gave out distribution grants, it assumed a year of full-time work commitment. Indie distribution today is not for recouping money. It can really only be used for building an audience or getting out a message. That can be accomplished with eventivized screenings and impact campaigns. Or releasing it for free on Youtube. When you consider how little you end up earning via traditional routes, that might not be as crazy as it sounds.
Independent film distribution is an incredibly difficult system to navigate, so doing your research and going in with realistic expectations is key.
Helpful resources about independent film distribution:
Seed&Spark and Kinema just put out a thorough distribution handbook.
The Film Collaborative has everything from case studies to a distributor report card. (Case studies are interesting, but keep in mind that their relevance has a very short shelf life because things change so quickly.)
Distribution Advocates has a podcast.
Brian Newman touches upon distribution a lot in his newsletter.
There are some grants out there for distribution and impact campaigns, especially for docs.
ABOUT JULIA KOTS
Julia is a Brooklyn-based filmmaker from Ukraine. Her first feature film, “Inez & Doug & Kira,” is available on Amazon and Google Play. She would be very grateful if you took a look and left a review, if the spirit moves you. Learn more at www.juliakots.com. See an excerpt of Julia's virtual Q&A with Moonshot Initiative here.
Comments