October 4, 2016

How I Learned to Stop Counting on Miracles and Love Self-Distribution

"No businessperson would willingly create a product with which they had no way to go to market—yet indie film, day in and day out, continues to do this."

“Did you get distribution?”

It’s a question any indie film producer who's spent valuable years of their lives raising money, executing, and then debuting a film at a film festival has heard. Even indie film neophytes seem to somehow know: you’re not somebody who’s somebody until you’ve sold your movie to a distributor. I mean, if Kevin Smith could sell a $25,000 credit-card-financed feature film to Harvey Weinstein, what’s stopping you?

Clerks premiered at the 1994 Sundance Film Festival. It was released in nearly 100 venues and grossed over $3,151,130 in theaters alone. Given that in 1994 film tickets cost, on average, less than half of what they cost now, the film grossed the equivalent of $6.3 million in theaters, and then did untold business on VHS and other ancillary routes. A smashing success for Kevin, Harvey, and their teams! Huzzah!

We make films hoping for a miracle: we want to make an artistically fulfilling film, go to Sundance, and watch the money come rolling in. A miracle is not a business plan.

So, did you get distribution like Kevin Smith got distribution? No? You mean no one is putting your film, with no recognizable stars or high concept, in 100 theaters with a significant P&A spend?

Don’t worry about it—very few people ever experience that kind of release for their low-budget indie. And yet, we still judge the success of an independent film in 2016 on the metrics established in the heyday of Sundance and Toronto acquisition madness from the 1990s.

Times have changed, and it's time to adapt

Here are some things that didn’t exist in 1994: iTunes. Netflix. Hulu. Amazon. Digital cinema. Social media. Hell, even DVD. Movies were shown on film on projectors. Today, the majority of films that premiere at Sundance or Toronto will be given, at best, a courtesy/vanity theatrical in New York and LA to satisfy critics that (inconceivably) will only review films that play “in theaters.” Attempts to get around this through the process of paying to fully book a film in a single theater (known as Four-Walling) to require the New York Times to review a given film have been circumvented by, you know, the New York Times figuring out what people were doing and deciding they didn’t want to be a part of it any longer.

We chose to self-distribute our film. And it was the best decision we ever made.

The problem is not A.O. Scott and the New York Times. The problem is that we still judge success on an archaic model that only serves to hurt filmmakers and perpetuate a cycle of economic and emotional frustration. Given that more and more films are going from film festival to digital-centric distribution, what is the difference between a distributor and you, the filmmaker, in a room with a computer? Distributors themselves know that theatrical is a dying model for smaller movies—so why do we think that we need it to be a “success?”

Why you still haven’t considered self-distribution

“Self-distribution” is a term that still sounds, to many filmmakers, as though you failed. Well, if you choose to self-distribute, here’s what you “failed” to do: you failed to convince some person, in a room somewhere, watching your film on a Vimeo link, that they should pay you for your hard work. Does that mean your work is any less valuable? If an audience sees your film and it makes them laugh, cry, gasp, smile, and feel something, does it not have value? That value might not seem monetary to that person in a room somewhere with your Vimeo link, but you’re there, in the theater at your film festival debut, and you can feel the value.

Credit: Sundance 2016

So the question is this: how do you get people to watch something you know they’re going to like, if only they knew it existed?

No businessperson would willingly create a product with which they literally had no way to go to market. Yet indie film, day in and day out, continues to do this. We make films hoping for a miracle: we want to make an artistically fulfilling film, go to Sundance, win an award, and watch the money come rolling in. Well, as someone that has made an artistically fulfilling film, gone to Sundance with it, and won an award, I have to tell you: a miracle is not a business plan. We chose to self-distribute our film. And it was the best decision we ever made.

Now, we were luckier than most; I have some incredible partners on the film in question, First Girl I Loved, which won the “Best of NEXT” audience award after its premiere at Sundance 2016. The It Gets Better Foundation, dedicated to supporting at-risk LGBTQ youth, partnered with us before the festival to help promote to our core audience and remains a potent advocate on social media and in the LGBTQ community. We have the support of the Sundance Institute, which helped connect us with a partner and investor that absolutely loved the film and saw its potential to reach an audience. As a result, we have been able to mount a robust and effective marketing campaign for our own film.

For $2,000, you can be on every meaningful VOD platform that a distributor can access.

But there’s nothing stopping you from doing the same thing—if you plan properly from the early stages of making your film.

Not all distributors are created equal

At and after our premiere at Sundance, we had offers from "distributors" —that is, reputable companies with movies that they’ve released, largely on the internet and on VOD platforms. They have contracts with those platforms, they say, which is why we should go with them and give them an all-rights license for 15 years, for a fraction of our budget up front, with no promise of ever seeing another dollar. Every right that exists for the film—including the increasingly lucrative SVOD (Subscription VOD) rights—Netflix, Hulu and the ilk—would be theirs to exploit until I was in my mid-50s.

“But, how are people going to see it otherwise?” you might ask. “What other choice do I have?”

Credit: Ross Putman

For $2,000, you can be on every meaningful VOD platform that a distributor can access. So unless your “distributor” is promising an advertising spend for your film, they’re not a distributor. They’re an “aggregator.” They’re taking your content, putting it on the internet, and capturing whatever revenue is there from “low-hanging fruit”—the people that will buy it simply because it is what it is. If they’re not promoting and pushing your film, they are literally doing nothing that you can’t do for yourself.

To be fair, they pay what they think they can justify—but those rates sometimes value a film so cheaply that it seems impossible to even continue making movies. If an aggregator is willing to pay $50K for your film, are you supposed to make it for $40K? Unfortunately for most people, that’s an impossible number to hit. Yet, filmmakers sell their films to these aggregators because they feel powerless to reach their audience otherwise.

We’ve been trending in the top 15-20 of iTunes presales for the past three weeks—right there alongside Woody Allen and Johnny Depp.

The Orchard, a prominent indie distributor (not an aggregator), just released the financial details on one of their films to the public for the first time, explaining how and where they earn money. And if there’s a big takeaway, it’s this: digital is where you should focus your resources. So if you can get on the same platforms, for very little cost, there is no material difference between you and an aggregator.

Here's how we did it

That’s not to say it’s easy; as someone that’s in the middle of doing it, it’s a great deal of work. For First Girl, we raised advertising money from an investor, with a P&A spend that’s equal to about 20% of our production budget. We made our own poster, our own trailer. We spent time uploading our film and files to the internet. We hired a publicist, a digital media strategist, and a social media manager. We booked a theater for our premiere and a bar for our after party.

And I’m proud to say that we’ve been trending in the top 15-20 of iTunes presales for the past three weeks—right there alongside Woody Allen and Johnny Depp. Our trailer has hit over a million views across all YouTube links. We have press in dozens of publications. We sold our SVOD rights to a new channel (a deal that hasn’t been announced quite yet) and retained all of our other rights (Transactional VOD, like iTunes, is a separate set of rights we can exploit). The SVOD deal was worth nearly 15% of our production budget for a relatively short license and we can continue licensing our SVOD rights into the future, further recouping money for our investors.

Here’s the twist: we’re happy. And we’re getting the release we felt our film deserved.

Credit: Ross Putnam

The big question then becomes this: is this business model sustainable? Will we be better off self-releasing? Our pre-sales, as mentioned, are fantastic. Our SVOD deal is lucrative. But there are a lot of unknowns. What I do know is that we’ve held on to our rights; we haven’t given away the creative life of our movie (at least as it applies to how it’s presented to the world), and we’ve left open our ability to control its destiny and monetize it as we see fit for many years into the future. Depending on how this TVOD release goes, we could be in the black by 2017. We might not be, but controlling the business model and knowing that we will know the answer feels good—and it seems like we will quickly exceed the “low-hanging fruit” that various distributors thought they saw for our film.

If we had built the cost of distribution into our movie from day one, we’d have a realistic plan for going forward and would have committed to self-distribution far earlier. 

For the consumer, there is no difference between our movie and one that’s released by a distributor. All they know is that they can pay to watch it. And if the movie looks good, and they’re interested in the material, they will pay. The archaic distribution model is one where filmmakers hope that some omnipotent distributor that “knows” what people want will buy your movie for so much money you’ll retire in Cancun. The reality is that no level of indie producing is easy—and distribution is no exception. The best move isn’t to hope. It’s to plan.

If we had built the cost of distribution into our movie from day one, we’d have a realistic plan for going forward and would have committed to self-distribution far earlier. And the next time I raise financing for a film, I’m going to raise an additional 20% on top of the film’s expenses to support a self-release. Hey, if we get a miracle offer, we’ll never spend that money and can just give it back to our investors.

But when that miracle offer never comes, I won’t have to worry about the question, “Did you get distribution?” I'll know I’m going to be able to reach my audience either way.      

Pre-Order 'The First Girl I Loved' on iTunes now. 

Editor's Note: This article originally reappeared on ScreenCraft and has been republished with permission.

Your Comment


I'm very much on board with this. Seems filmmakers are more artists than businesspeople, but if expect results from your film, you have to be 51% business.

I'm launching my first doc "Church Of Felons" right now. We've made into some festivals, and won an award already. But the real joy comes from putting on hosted events. Building the audience and buzz allowed us to sell out 2 shows in a 600 seat auditorium. No experience, VERY little funding, just passion and marketing.

We also raised over $18K for addiction recovery efforts in our area from those screenings. Filmmakers have the ability to move people... move mountains with their message.

... just don't wait for someone else to push your film for you.

October 4, 2016 at 11:10AM, Edited October 4, 11:10AM

Jordan Mederich
Documentarian / Filmmaker

This is, far and away, the single best article I've ever read on this site (and that's coming from someone who wrote for NFS for 3 years).

The whole culture of "just go make your feature at any cost, and everything will work out when you make it to Sundance" is just so destructive and demoralizing. It's an unrealistic pipe dream for most of us, but it's constantly parroted as the definition of success that we should set for ourselves.

So thank you, Ross. I'm going to share this article everywhere I can.

October 4, 2016 at 12:12PM

Robert Hardy
Founder of Filmmaker's Process

+1. I think there has been a couple of good articles on NFS this year about self distribution but they are far and few. It would be awesome if it can be a major theme here. Video essays can take a back seat.

October 4, 2016 at 1:25PM

Rajesh Naroth

This site works as an alternative to film schools. How can just distribution be the main theme. It should certainly have more articles on distribution, I agree, but let's not forget that cinema is art too.

October 5, 2016 at 8:54AM


Informative article! Thanks for sharing this.

October 4, 2016 at 1:29PM

Eddy Vallante

Great article. But i disagree on what a "Miracle" is. The Miracle is self distribution.

October 5, 2016 at 12:12AM


Self distribution is definitely the way to go for small indie filmmakers!

With Space Trucker Bruce ( https://amzn.com/B00JL5M1TS ) I skipped festivals. They seemed like a big money pit. Instead I had four-wall showings, posted online with Vimeo On-Demand, and sold DVDs. Several months later I put my movie on YouTube for free. I got tons of views and lots of good comments. Now getting on SVOD with Amazon Prime has made Space Trucker Bruce almost profitable! The best thing about SVOD is people are willing to try it out because they think of it as free.
I don't think at the micro-budget level it's ever a realistic goal to make a profit. I tell my crew and any investors that our goal is making a fun movie. It's not for profit.

October 5, 2016 at 1:46AM, Edited October 5, 1:46AM

Anton Doiron

Great article thanks

October 5, 2016 at 11:55AM

Scott Jensen
Tai Chi and Kung Fu Instructor


I wish good luck and lots of success. Just my 2 cents, I believe this self-distribution is good for giving that chance to indie filmmakers who most likely made a film on low budget/no distribution budget and bad, by doing so, but as unwanted aftermath effect of alienating distributors. Distributors then feel left out and having no more purpose (dying job), because filmmakers take on the role of (self) 'distributor' themselves - without needing any distributors. Distributors' constribution thus becomes nill. But I would be the first to say, it neccessite requirement because of no distribution money in indie features.
The costly archaic theatrical distribution model is getting forgotten for uncostly VOD self-distribution, money speaks and is changing things. I feel this both good and bad, good for allowing that opportunity but bad because this also hurts theatrical business. It's false to say theatrical business is dying, it will mutate and adapt; it may be archaic but its stands the test of time. A self-distribution will never have the impact a theatrical one has, it's why filmmakers still want their movies shown on a big screen theater - even if they don't make any money - vs making tons of cash in a self-distribution VOD online movie Youtube thing, it's like night and day. Internet gives millions of audience potential in a mouse click, easy money from huge Online Traffic audience - but How they saw your movie is another factor that filmmakers can either ignore or give lots of importance. Depending if making money is more important (self-distribute online) or if having your film be seen the true old 'holy grail' fashion way (the 'grand' theatrical distribution). You can skip that way and go self-distribution but remember that those who get a theatrical distribution are lesd than 500 on few thousand films competing for theatrical distribution. Obviously, because of the extreme difficulty of getting a theatrical distribution, it makes sense to go the self-distribution route. But easier things are not necessarily better things. I. e. the ones who do get a theatrical distribution are the Select few - thus, a very special Rare thing. People recognize that special achievement by continuing supporting by going to the cinema theater instead of watching self-distributed online movies. Watching a movie on a PC or TV is a dull(er) affair compared to Cinema Theater Experience. Hence, people come back to theaters to keep the (theatrical) business prospering (and the theatrical distributions to happen/the theatrical distributors still have a job).

October 8, 2016 at 1:49AM


This is an awesome and empowering article! Would be so amazing if there was a follow up article breaking down the exact steps/price of self distribution. When you say it costs $2000, what exactly does that look like?

October 18, 2016 at 7:41PM

Yoko Okumura

Nice story, but still, most indie films don't even get to that level of winning some sort of award at Sundance, as this did, (let alone accepted,) with partnerships to help promote the societal nature of their film. Most don't even get festival acceptance for one reason or the other. I have a science fiction film with a famous actor known for his indie work, and still no acceptance at many levels from various factions of the business. Then I found Quiver, a "real" aggregator, not one of those "distributors" who really don't distribute as was cited in the article, and for under $2,500, I can get my film to iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Vimeo, Comcast, DirecTV, Dish and Hulu. (don't want Netflix - self defeating.) There are additional outlets but those were the ones I wanted. I keep 100% of any deal I make from those outlets - and those deals vary quite a bit. Quiver also has a great set of tracking tools. Of course, marketing is still in my wheel house, but that's a lot of subscribers and homes. Building up the website, creating a fan film for something famous and directing people to the film's site, (subtly,) social media, etc., etc., is an ongoing process. The total subscribers at the moment of Comcast, DirecTV, and Dish, are at around 55 million. You still have to be approved technically and content-wise, but that doesn't even include the other outlets.

October 23, 2016 at 8:28AM


Great article. Thanks.

September 21, 2017 at 3:31PM