Clearance

It looks irrational at first: a distributor turning down a cinema that wants to play its film and pay for the privilege. The reasoning is that two screens a mile apart split one audience rather than doubling it, and the distributor would rather have one strong engagement than two weak ones.

Whether that reasoning holds is exactly what makes clearance contested. It has been the subject of antitrust complaints and litigation, particularly in the United States, where independents have argued that clearance is used to protect circuits rather than to protect the title. Practice varies widely by territory, and in much of Europe it is far less formalised than the American version.

For an independent near a circuit site, clearance is not an abstraction — it is why the biggest title of the year is unavailable to you. The realistic responses are programming responses rather than legal ones.

Play what the zone does not. Repertory, documentary, foreign-language, event cinema, local-interest and community programming are not subject to the same contest, and they build an audience that belongs to you rather than to the release calendar. Sell the experience the multiplex cannot: curation, Q&As, seasons, a bar worth arriving early for. And own the relationship directly — an audience that books through your own site and app, and hears from you by push and email, is one you keep whichever titles you are allowed to play.