Editor’s note: This is the second chapter of “A Producer’s Path,” an ongoing column for IndieWire’s Future of Filmmaking from independent producer Daren Smith. Read the first chapter here.
We are complicit in creating the conditions we complain about.
I first heard this idea from Jerry Colonna on a podcast in 2019. The statement stopped me dead in my tracks, and led to me making some serious changes in my life to directly address the things I was complaining about.
Here’s what my complicity looked like in my film career: I had written half a dozen screenplays and TV pilots over the previous decade, and tried over and over again to get them made. Time after time, the answer was no, the money never came. Finally, around 2015 I was able to convince an investor to put in $150,000 toward a $2 million budget for development – but after chasing more money and connections at AFM and realizing the market wasn’t buying what we were selling, we gave the investor their money back.
That year I realized what I was doing. I was pushing what I wanted to make on the marketplace and then complaining about the fact that they didn’t want it. It would take me a few years to figure out the solve for this, which is what we’re talking about today. I was operating with supply-side thinking. Shifting to demand side made all the difference.
“The money is the hardest part”. You’ve said this. I’ve said it too in the past. But it’s not true. (The hardest part is getting an audience to care enough to show up, but that’s a later column.)
Capital isn’t scarce, it’s stranded. Twenty years ago there was $4.8 trillion in alternative assets. Today there’s $22 trillion. And nearly none of it flows to independent film. The money isn’t the problem, it’s that we haven’t built a way for it to flow our way.
I’ve had 317 conversations with investors over the last 16 months. These investors come to events excited. Others are shocked that I reached out, “How did you find me? And how did you know I love movies?!” They react this way because the norm is a filmmaker asking for money (supply side) rather than presenting an opportunity (demand side). The money isn’t flowing because filmmakers speak one language and capital speaks another. Investors care about “a diversified portfolio with a mix of alternative, non-correlated assets”. You need to outline how you’re protecting the downside and getting them a certain return over a specific timeline with lots of potential upside.
Most producers speak in supply-side language: “Here’s this amazing project that I’m super passionate about and have been working on for years. Here’s a deck outlining all of the creative aspects of the project, please give me money.” Then, when it doesn’t work, they take to social media to complain about the state of the industry, ignoring how they are complicit in creating those very conditions.
Demand side asks: what does capital want? How do I build a channel to divert some of that capital flow into my project? What does distribution need to have more success in the marketplace? What is the audience already looking for? I recently had a conversation with a filmmaker who spent years trying to convince investors to give her $1 million to make her first film. The market responded with $50,000 in charity — money they expected to never see again, but they wanted to support the filmmaker and her dream to make this passion project.
Supply-side thinking is what cuts a $1 million movie down to a $50,000 budget. Demand side takes your project and expands the impact because it enrolls so many others that typically avoid indie film. When you are aligned with the needs (demands) of the marketplace, you receive more support in the form of capital, partnerships, distribution, and people showing up to see your movie in theaters. It’s the way to get the thing we say we want. The thing that betrays our creative desires isn’t selling out, it’s selling from the wrong position.
You don’t need to go get an MBA to make the shift from supply-side to demand-side thinking. There are two mechanics at play: downside coverage and risk-adjusted return. You cover the downside through distribution, lending, tax credits, sponsors, donors, and co-financing partners with skin in the game. But the key here is that you must have them all in place before you greenlight the film.
Risk-adjusted return means that when you reduce the downside through the architecture we just described, the return profile changes. A 5x return on a high-risk bet is mediocre. A 5x return on a protected investment is exceptional. And indie films can deliver those multiples. We have had recent examples of films designed to be profitable — produced on disciplined budgets and the audience built in: “Terrifier 3” earned 45x its budget in theaters, and “Iron Lung” made $50 million on a $3 million budget.
What film can do that venture can’t is provide experiences other than returns. You just have to ask investors what demand exists. Do they care about supporting meaningful media? Do they value the Executive Producer credit and walking the red carpet with their family and the stars of the film? Are you giving them a chance to play in a sandbox they’ve dreamed about their whole lives? What is the thing you can give them that they can’t buy on their own?
We did this with our last film, “Faith of Angels”, and are doing it again on “Brotherhood – A Cinematic Musical”. On “Faith of Angels”, we had an investor in at $150,000 against a $500,000 budget. That was their appetite for charity; they weren’t expecting to ever see that money again. When we came back to them with an investable project — a $1 million movie with known actors and a plan for distribution — he saw the opportunity and committed the full million on the spot. That film played over 400 theaters and returned the investor’s capital within 18 months of release.
With “Brotherhood” we’re implementing this demand-side thinking from day one. We started talking to distributors and production companies very early on to gauge the demand in the marketplace. Before even starting pre-production we had three circling the project, including international theatrical distributors. We started with 50 percent of the budget committed from an equity investor then started putting together all of the tax incentives, lending, sponsors, and donor money so that the equity isn’t taking on all of the risk. We also started marketing the film from day one, hiring a four-person team to start telling people that this movie is coming, and inviting them to join us in the journey, creating the tension required to get people to show up to the theaters when it comes out later this year.
That’s the architecture of an investable project. With the proper downside protection you make the project less risky. When you design for risk-adjusted returns you meet the demand from the savviest individuals who are looking for a return on their investment.
The supply is increasing while the successes are decreasing. For the first year since COVID, 2025 saw a lower box office and fewer tickets sold. Movies peaked in 2018 with an $11.89 billion box office and 993 movies released in theaters. 19 new films every week. In 2025 that number was only $8.65 billion and 668 movies released, or 13 per week. With how much “content” that is now created and generated every day, the way to be the signal among the noise is by looking like an investable alternative, not “another one of these”.
Shifting to this demand-side approach is imperative if we want to have sustainable, profitable careers. We can no longer stay complicit. “How do I fund what I want to make” contributes to the circumstances we say we don’t want. We have to start asking, “What is the market already demanding that I’m uniquely positioned to deliver?” Then build the architecture that looks like other investments that capital flows to.
Capital is only stranded on one side of the equation. On the other side, there are distributors saying the same thing investors are: “I would have said yes if you’d built it differently.” Next time, we’ll talk about the three tracks a film can travel from inception to market, and why you can’t switch once you’ve started.
Daren Smith is a Utah-based indie film producer and founder of Craftsman Films, an independent studio established last year to finance, develop, produce, market, and distribute values-based, family-friendly indie films that spark conversation and change people for the better. The first film he helped produce premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and was acquired by IFC Films. His next film, “Brotherhood – A Cinematic Musical” films in April and is targeting an October release.
All artwork for the Producer’s Path series is created by Steven de Groot.
