Reader Question: Is it true that only 2% of independent films get distribution?

Background on the ever-changing indie film landscape… and is that HOPE on the horizon?

A question from Lembit:

Is this true that only 2% of independent films get any form of distribution?

I got this information from an article written by William C. Martell.

“According to the Los Angeles Times, only 2% of independent films get any form of distribution. That includes DVD distribution. Most films are never seen by anyone but the filmmakers.” (Script magazine, September/October 2008, page 83)

Though we talk about indie films a lot on GITS, I confess I’m more of a lover of independent cinema than an expert on distribution. I do know enough, however, to understand that the biggest issue is not getting an indie film produced — given digital filmmaking, virtually anybody can make a movie nowadays. No, the real problem is getting a movie distributed. And not just distributed, but done in such a way that a significant amount of eyeballs will see the movie to generate sufficient revenue to create a sustainable model for continuing to produce indie movies.

That has proved to be a tough nut to crack, especially since the collapse of the ‘specialty’ film divisions as arms of the major Hwood movie studios.

[For background re this subject, go here, here, here, here, and here].

So no, I don’t doubt that 2% figure.

But two things appear to be happening that could shift those numbers significantly over the next decade. First, some indie filmmakers are finding success in self-distributing their movies. Here is an excerpt from a GITS post “Independent Filmmakers Distribute on Their Own”:

“Anvil! The Story of Anvil,” a documentary about a Canadian metal band, turned into the do-it-yourself equivalent of a smash hit when it stretched a three-screen opening in April into a four-month run, still under way, on more than 150 screens around the country.

“I paid for everything, I took a second mortgage on my house,” said Sacha Gervasi, the film’s director.

Mr. Gervasi, whose studio writing credits include “The Terminal,” directed by Steven Spielberg, nearly three years ago, began filming “Anvil!” with his own money in hopes of attracting a conventional distributor. The movie played well at Sundance in 2008, but offers were low.

So Mr. Gervasi put up more money — his total cost was in “the upper hundred thousands,” he said — to distribute the film through a company called Abramorama, while selling the DVD and television rights to VH1.

The aging rockers of Anvil have shown up at theaters to play for audiences. Famous fans like Courtney Love were soon chattering online about the film. And an army of “virtual street teamers” — Internet advocates who flood social networks with admiring comments, sometimes for a fee, sometimes not — were recruited by a Web consultant, Sarah Lewitinn, who usually works the music scene.

The idea behind this sort of guerrilla release is to accumulate just enough at the box office to prime the pump for DVD sales and return the filmmaker’s investment, maybe even with a little profit. “Anvil!” has earned roughly $1 million worldwide at the box office so far, its producer, Rebecca Yeldham, said.

The second thing is this damn curious thing known as the Internet. It’s estimated that 1.8 billion people have access to it with a growth rate of nearly 400% over the last decade. Each end user represents a potential viewer of an indie movie, so in effect what that means is the Internet has already created the infrastructure filmmakers need to distribute their movies anywhere in the world.

Indeed, we are seeing the emergence of online indie film distribution portals such as IndieMoviesOnline.com, IndieFlix.com, and MovieFlix.com. Do these sites have enough paying viewers to translate into profitability for individual filmmakers? Probably not. But I suspect that there are some specific movies that have made money through online distribution.

So the question boils down to this: Why do some films get distributed and make money while others do not? In this era of “The Long Tail”, DIY filmmaking, and the adage of “If you build it, [they] will come,” it’s probably fair to say that in a vast majority of cases, the movies that worked financially were good movies, while the movies that didn’t work financially were not. No matter how things change, some things remain the same:

• You are much better off if your movie has a strong story concept
• You are much better off if your movie is based on a good screenplay
• You are much better off if the director knows what they’re doing
• You are much better off if you have good actors
• You are much better off if the film crew you use can bring professional production values to what’s shot, what’s edited, what’s scored, etc

Even if your movie costs $20K, you have to figure that it is in competition — speaking purely about entertainment value — with Avatar. Why? Because life is a zero-sum game and at the end of the day, you (the filmmaker) have got to create a movie that has something about it compelling enough for me (the consumer) to spend 100 minutes of my time watching it while pushing back my need to see the latest of Hollywood’s multi-zillion dollar CGI 3D spectacles.

Perhaps harder than that is marketing your movie so that it breaks through all the noise of the marketplace and actually gets my attention for a handful of seconds.

Not easy.

From the screenwriting standpoint, what we can control are the first two items on that list: strong story concept and good script.

It always comes back to that.

UPDATE: Since I posted this in 2010, there has been a sea change… make that a TSUNAMI in the arena of the indie film world. Read: Netflix. Amazon. Hulu.

Eight years ago, ‘streaming services’ was singular as in Netflix. They expanded beyond DVDs in 2007, but they didn’t move into acquiring and developing original content until 2013, most notably the series ‘House of Cards’. Since 2013, Netflix has become a major player in indie film distribution and increasingly movie development and production. In 2017, we are talking about an $8 billion investment.

Add Amazon, Hulu, Facebook, and suddenly, that 2% figure noted in the OP seems awfully small.

Now, imagine what I may be writing about 5 years from now in revisiting this subject. Who know what other buyers and distributors may enter the field and how the current set of players may expand their budgets.

[I’m looking at you, Apple!]

Bottom line: Content. Is. King. Queen. Prince. Princess. Duke. Duchess. And Court Jester.

If you are creative… and you can write… no matter how competitive it is…

There are companies with a LOT of money who are looking to acquire said content.

[That said, the 2% figure may still be accurate if only because with better digital technologies, so many more people are making movies. That shouldn’t dissuade you from pursuing your own creative ambitions, just be smart about it in terms of your own financial commitment because the odds of achieving financial success as a filmmaker are still quite long.]

For more articles in the Go Into The Story Reader Question series, go here.