Box Office Mendoza Line

Mendoza Trading CardMany times critics and filmmakers argue about the quality of a film’s content or message against its story. Star power and a filmmaker’s ability to draw in an audience also factor into arguments about what makes a film successful. But, one factor stands the test of time and survives all arguments about the monetary success of a film: the box office Mendoza line.

Named after baseball’s Mario Mendoza, whose mediocre batting average defined the threshold for incompetent hitting, the box office marks the threshold when theaters drop titles from its screens for the next best opportunity to make money.

The moment a film drops below a per screen average of $2,000 per weekend, it’s no longer viable as a money making device. This amount has stood the test of time based on competitive new releases, negotiated house nuts and the duration of marketing budgets.

When a film crosses the Mendoza line distributors stop promoting the film in order to cut its potential losses and replace it with new selections. Films that fail to rise above the Mendoza line rarely survive past the second week in theaters, as numerous films fight for the few open screens during each release period.

This is partially due to distributors not wanting to lose a screen to a competitor and desiring to manage risk mitigation on the film’s current margins. Theaters also need to maintain a certain level of revenue stream in order to protect its house nut (its negotiated take on concessions).

While the exit strategy on films typically cause titles to have a long distribution tail, very little revenue is generated during this period. Most films only make 5-10% more unless it’s in a light distribution window that can generate an additional15%.

Analysts that estimate each film’s market potential and weekend predictions, use additional tools that determine expected thresholds of a film’s longevity. For instance, prior to making adjustments based on the impact of social media, all films will make 50% of its opening during its second weekend. The third weekend will make 50% of the second weekend’s box office and so on.

However, advertising and social media directly impact the percentage. The alterations can change the percentage from 50% to 35-55%. The addition or dropping of screens due to contract changes or regional performance success can also impact the percentage by a plus or minus 30-45%. While these sound like huge swings, an analyst who has tracked the market for two years can easily estimate within a plus or minus 5% of accuracy.

Analysts do take into account outliers and transitions within sub-genres, which paint clear pictures of market trends. This gives production and acquisition departments a leg up when determining future investments and expansion.

Production companies also benefit from understanding and tracking the Mendoza line. Any picture that never rises above it or falls too quickly below it either has too few super-fans or has a story that didn’t connect on a universal basis. In a fragmented market that’s filled with social media, a film only needs 1,000 super-fans (or influential fans) to succeed.

The combination of factors that keep a film above the Mendoza line for numerous weeks includes a great story, influential super-fans, star power and provocative social media. Writer/directors have also become a factor over the past ten years, but are still considered new to the promotional cycle.

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers

A Few Differences: Faith-Based and Redemptive Films

© Argus - Fotolia.comThis week I was asked about the difference between faith-based films (a genre), as defined by Hollywood, and redemptive stories (not a genre). One person asked why a film couldn’t be both. Another inquired about who created the definition. And, the biggest question was, “Why do redemptive stories generate 10-20 times more revenue than most faith-based films?”

Since its difficult to categorize the two for comparison (one being a genre and the other one not), I’ll do my best to answer the questions based on known presentation and marketing information.

The faith-based genre definition was generated by a marketing department and ad agency. The team’s task was to release a picture to a market and generate 2.5X more revenue than the picture and prints cost to make. In order to do so, the team had to describe the picture in the right way to the right audience and convince them to purchase tickets.

All of the major studios did the same over several years and watched the measurable results. The definitions were adjusted with each release until the marketing departments and ad agencies were able to reproduce positive results with multiple titles. The elements involved in reproducing similar results led to the definition of the faith-based genre, which was supported by church audiences. However, with the definition in place, it didn’t stop Hollywood from trying to market non-faith-based films as faith-based films.

The biggest difference between faith-based and redemptive stories is in the delivery of the message(s). Faith-based films typically preach or teach one or more messages, while redemptive stories visually demonstrate one message. Please understand that one type of film is not “better” than the other, but very different.

For instance, if it’s done in the right light to raise the significance of the story’s redemptive value in the eyes of the audience, a redemptive story has no problem (within reason) demonstrating non-gratuitous violence, language and sexuality. The bigger you want grace or mercy to appear at the climax of the film, the greater the depravity must be demonstrated in order to create the emotional contrast – Known to most as story conflict.

In a faith-based film, conflict and depravity are rarely demonstrated, but instead are alluded to, for fear of making someone in the audience feel uncomfortable or lead them astray. Because of this choice, the emotional contrast can’t be visualized and therefore the messages are presented through dialog – teaching and preaching.

In other words, redemptive stories are filled with conflict, highly emotional, visually demonstrated, and can be a part of any genre, while faith-based stories are safe and explained, but most importantly are labeled as a genre unto itself.

We also see this affect in the funding requirements. Church funded films must be safe, not lead anyone astray, and many times present the Gospel message, driving filmmakers to create faith-based films. Privately funded films must create a profit, which forces filmmakers to heighten the conflict, visual and emotional contrast within the story.

The market is large enough for both faith-based and redemptive stories to coexist, however, marketers still need to work on differentiating the two types of films. There’s nothing more disappointing than sitting in a theater to watch one type of film and find the other playing on screen.

As for the difference in revenue, it’s anyone’s guess. The best argument I’ve heard suggests that few people want to be told how to live (faith-based), but most want to learn from watching other’s experiences (redemptive).

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers