Insight The “Fake Demand” Problem: A Growing Reality in Today’s Film Market

[admin]

One of the most noticeable yet rarely discussed shifts in today’s film industry is what many professionals quietly refer to as “fake demand.” The market is full of meetings, positive feedback, and apparent interest, yet more and more producers and sales agents are realizing that much of this interest simply doesn’t convert into actual deals. This isn’t something you’ll see framed directly in official headlines. Instead, it appears under softer terms like “buyer selectivity,” “longer decision cycles,” or “market correction.” In practice, however, it often means that conversations start, momentum builds… and then nothing closes.
This is not limited to a single market. It’s happening across the board whether in Cannes, Berlin, or the AFM. The only difference is that in highly concentrated environments like Cannes, it becomes much more visible.
Buyers are still present, still taking meetings, still engaging. But in many cases, they are gathering information, tracking trends, or keeping options open rather than committing. Decision-making has slowed down, internal approvals have increased, and risk tolerance has clearly decreased.
As a result, film markets are evolving. They are becoming less about immediate deal-making, and more about initiating decisions that may or may not materialize later. This creates a new kind of challenge. Generating interest is no longer the hard part. Converting that interest into execution is.
So the real question is no longer whether demand exists in the market, but how much of that demand is actually real.
What are you seeing right now is the interest you’re getting translating into deals, or is it increasingly just part of the process?

 

[Ryan]

This is a very accurate observation, and I think alongside “fake demand”, there’s another shift becoming just as important: execution risk. It’s no longer only about whether there is interest, or even whether a deal gets signed, but what actually happens after that. More and more cases are emerging where a deal looks closed on paper, but in reality the process slows down, drifts, or changes direction entirely. Sometimes communication drops after contracts are signed. In other cases, timelines start slipping, or terms begin to shift often not in favor of the producer. And increasingly, payment itself becomes uncertain or significantly delayed.
What makes this more complex is that this is no longer just about isolated cases. In certain regions and market segments, these risks appear more frequently. Not necessarily due to bad intent, but because of differences in business practices, financing structures, or operational reliability. That changes how deals need to be evaluated. It’s no longer enough to ask who is interested the more important question is who can actually execute. Who has a track record of closing and paying. Who follows through after the signature, not just before it. In that sense, “fake demand” may not mean that demand isn’t real, but that the process has become less linear and more fragile. Interest exists, deals can happen but execution is what ultimately determines whether any real value is created. The market may not be weaker, but it has definitely become more complex.
Curious how others are approaching this are you filtering partners more aggressively based on execution reliability, and have you experienced cases where a “closed” deal didn’t play out as expected?

 

[norwest]

One of the most noticeable yet rarely discussed shifts in today’s film industry is what many professionals quietly refer to as “fake demand.” The market is full of meetings, positive feedback, and apparent interest, yet more and more producers and sales agents are realizing that much of this interest simply doesn’t convert into actual deals. This isn’t something you’ll see framed directly in official headlines. Instead, it appears under softer terms like “buyer selectivity,” “longer decision cycles,” or “market correction.” In practice, however, it often means that conversations start, momentum builds… and then nothing closes.
This is not limited to a single market. It’s happening across the board whether in Cannes, Berlin, or the AFM. The only difference is that in highly concentrated environments like Cannes, it becomes much more visible.
Buyers are still present, still taking meetings, still engaging. But in many cases, they are gathering information, tracking trends, or keeping options open rather than committing. Decision-making has slowed down, internal approvals have increased, and risk tolerance has clearly decreased.
As a result, film markets are evolving. They are becoming less about immediate deal-making, and more about initiating decisions that may or may not materialize later. This creates a new kind of challenge. Generating interest is no longer the hard part. Converting that interest into execution is.
So the real question is no longer whether demand exists in the market, but how much of that demand is actually real.
What are you seeing right now is the interest you’re getting translating into deals, or is it increasingly just part of the process?

I think “fake demand” is a misleading term. Demand hasn’t disappeared, conversion has. The real question today isn’t whether there is interest, but who can and will actually execute. Interest has become cheap, execution is the bottleneck.
What matters now is real payment track record, not credits; who actually makes decisions and how fast; and how visible and solid the financing structure is. If these aren’t clear, it’s not a deal, it’s just pipeline noise. What’s changed significantly is that “momentum” has lost its meaning. Meetings, strong verbal enthusiasm, and constant follow-ups are no longer indicators of real intent.
The market isn’t weaker, it’s slower and more fragile. If you’re not filtering based on execution, you’re burning time and money. For us, this is no longer intuitive, it’s a deliberate filter.

 

[norwest]

I think “fake demand” is a misleading term. Demand hasn’t disappeared, conversion has. The real question today isn’t whether there is interest, but who can and will actually execute. Interest has become cheap, execution is the bottleneck.
What matters now is real payment track record, not credits; who actually makes decisions and how fast; and how visible and solid the financing structure is. If these aren’t clear, it’s not a deal, it’s just pipeline noise. What’s changed significantly is that “momentum” has lost its meaning. Meetings, strong verbal enthusiasm, and constant follow-ups are no longer indicators of real intent.
The market isn’t weaker, it’s slower and more fragile. If you’re not filtering based on execution, you’re burning time and money. For us, this is no longer intuitive, it’s a deliberate filter.

One of the most noticeable yet rarely discussed shifts in today’s film industry is what many professionals quietly refer to as “fake demand.” The market is full of meetings, positive feedback, and apparent interest, yet more and more producers and sales agents are realizing that much of this interest simply doesn’t convert into actual deals. This isn’t something you’ll see framed directly in official headlines. Instead, it appears under softer terms like “buyer selectivity,” “longer decision cycles,” or “market correction.” In practice, however, it often means that conversations start, momentum builds… and then nothing closes.
This is not limited to a single market. It’s happening across the board whether in Cannes, Berlin, or the AFM. The only difference is that in highly concentrated environments like Cannes, it becomes much more visible.
Buyers are still present, still taking meetings, still engaging. But in many cases, they are gathering information, tracking trends, or keeping options open rather than committing. Decision-making has slowed down, internal approvals have increased, and risk tolerance has clearly decreased.
As a result, film markets are evolving. They are becoming less about immediate deal-making, and more about initiating decisions that may or may not materialize later. This creates a new kind of challenge. Generating interest is no longer the hard part. Converting that interest into execution is.
So the real question is no longer whether demand exists in the market, but how much of that demand is actually real.
What are you seeing right now is the interest you’re getting translating into deals, or is it increasingly just part of the process?

I think what we’re seeing isn’t just increased selectivity, but a shift in responsibility.
Sales agents used to help shape the marketability of a project. Now they expect it to be already solved before they come in. If the positioning, audience, and territory logic aren’t clear upfront, they simply move on. So it’s less about “good vs bad projects” and more about “pre-validated vs uncertain ones.” We’ve adapted by thinking like a sales agent much earlier. Not just packaging cast, but asking very directly: who buys this, in which territories, and why now. If that answer isn’t obvious, the project usually struggles no matter the creative strength. And I agree with the point above Cannes is shifting away from discovery. It’s becoming more about confirming decisions that are already mostly made.
The projects that break through are rarely discovered there anymore, they arrive already positioned to sell.
Curious if others feel that sales agents are becoming more like filters than partners at this stage.