The 3 Main Independent Distribution Models
We all know there’s more than one way to distribute a film. What we might not think about is that there’s also a lot more to your independent film distribution choice than the self or traditional binary pervasive across many online forums and social media groups. Here’s a breakdown to help filmmakers better understand the companies that are involved in distributing their indie films, and the broad business models they operate under so you can make a more informed choice.
High Touch / Prestige Releasing
What we all want, A24, Sony Pictures Classics, Focus Features, etc. These are the companies that release at most 1-2 films per month and generally have some degree of limited theatrical baked into the deal. They give a lot of time and attention to every release, and they’re exceptionally picky about what product they take. Most of the time you’ll need strong recognizable names or a top 5 world film festival to capture their attention. Even then it’s far from a guarantee that you’ll be able to attract this level of attention. Sometimes you can sneak in through a sales agent who has a relationship but even then you’ll need a superior product to have a shot.
The pros of this should be obvious. Getting a distribution deal from one of these entities is a game changer for both you and your film. If you can say that a major studio released your last film, you’ll be in a much better position to fund your next film. They’ll put lots of time, effort, and money into promoting it as well, or at least more than every other type of company on this list. You’ll probably even get a reasonably sized minimum guarantee out of the deal.
There are downsides though. The downside on the filmmaker side is that more than likely the MG is all you’ll ever see. Even the Blair Witch Project had to go to court with a copy of Time Magazine proclaiming the film to be the most profitable film of all time to receive royalty payments from their distributor. Unfortunately, most of us are not Blair Witch.
On the distributor side, this model is extremely risky if you don’t have the backing of another revenue source or deep institutional investment. Essentially, if you don’t have either of those forms of backing it only takes one flop to through the company into financial disarray. Unfortunately, this means that we probably won’t be seeing too many companies enter at this level in the near future unless they’re spinoffs of larger tech, media, or maybe even retail companies.
Hybrid Releasing / Producer Boosting
In this model, the distributor or sales agent relies on producers to handle the legwork on marketing providing assets and support in getting the film out there. The key here is to view the work as a partnership, with the distributors handling assets, access, and amplification of the producer’s efforts while the producers handle the grind that’s involved with engaging the core niche audience of a film without doubling the production budget in ad spends.
The benefits of this model on the filmmaker's end are that it allows the distributor to offer a much lower commission and significantly lower recoupable expenses. If the company is extremely filmmaker-friendly, they’ll also pay out the filmmakers on a distributor gross corridor so that the filmmakers will receive money from the first dollar in. This is the model I personally developed and implemented at Mutiny Pictures. We paid filmmakers in line with the Mutiny Commission at the same rate as the Mutiny commission. The only things that came out first were uncapped expenses for things like DCPs, special delivery costs, and legal expenses. As such, the vast majority of our filmmakers received a check in their first report.
For distributors, the upside of this model is that it allows the distributor to run a leaner operation while releasing 2-3 times more films than the high-touch model. This allows distributors to take bigger bets on a-typical releases as they’re more likely to have their bases covered by the fact that statistically at least 1 in 10 films will break out when they’re properly managed. A well-run distribution company that’s out of its initial revenue lag will be able to support itself on one breakout every two or three months, so long as they don’t overstaff.
The Drawback of this is that it’s less likely a distributor or sales agent will be willing to offer a minimum guarantee on this model. There are a few reasons for this, the primary being that the only companies really pursuing this model are smaller and younger and thus don’t have the backing of a large catalog consistently churning revenue. Given that situation, it would be too big of a risk for them to offer an MG they would not be able to cover with a guaranteed sale. The secondary reason may be that if it really is a partnership, filmmakers receiving a check early on may limit their willingness to help promote their own film. I’ve had that happen a lot.
This model is my personal favorite, but it’s not ideal. In an ideal world, filmmakers would be able to focus on making their next film after they deliver their first one for distribution. Unfortunately, that’s not the world we find ourselves in.
Shlock-Gunning / Aggregation++
Throw it out there and see what sticks. This would include aggregators, and companies like indie rights or Filmhub, but also could include other indie labels that put out too many films a year with relatively high expenses that don’t put too much effort into selling them. Basically, they, throw everything at a wall and see what sticks.
I want to be clear that in the case of some companies like IndieRights or FilmHub, this model is not necessarily a bad thing for filmmakers. Filmhub would probably not like that I’m saying this, but in general, I use them as an alternative to traditional aggregators like BitMax, Quiver, or even Distribbr. Of any company on the shlock-gunning list, I’d say my favorite is Filmhub as they’ve found an ethical and economical way of monetizing their wide access to AVOD, FAST Channels, and TVOD platforms.
The issue with this model is when it’s not properly disclosed. If your distributor is giving you the high touch or the hybrid pitch but then unceremoniously dropping your film it’s a problem. To be clear, platforms don’t always tell distributors exactly when a film will show up, so sometimes there’s a bit of this that’s unavoidable. I would share some names of companies I know that use these tactics, but they can get a little nasty at markets given most companies would take umbrage at this sort of accusation. One way to suss them out is their volume of releases. If they distribute more than one film per week, you might well be dealing with a schlock-gunner.
I might discuss the matter in future unrecorded live streams, and if you want access to those check out my mailing list, Patreon, and sub stack, all linked below.
Thanks so much for reading, and check back next week for more.
