Milena Traikovich has built a career on the cutting edge of demand generation, specializing in the science of how digital audiences are nurtured and converted into high-value leads. As the traditional gates of Hollywood are challenged by creators emerging from the wild frontier of YouTube, she offers a masterclass in how these “digital-first” communities are fundamentally altering the economics of the film industry. By examining the recent theatrical success of titles like Backrooms and The Amazing Digital Circus, Traikovich sheds light on the shift from studio-driven demand to creator-owned influence. Her insights provide a roadmap for understanding how three distinct business models—acquisition, distribution, and outright ownership—are reshaping the power dynamics of the box office.
The conversation explores the various ways YouTube creators are entering the theatrical space, contrasting those who join established studio systems with those who treat the industry merely as a vendor. Traikovich details the specific financial outcomes of recent releases, analyzing why some films experience explosive openings followed by sharp declines, while others build momentum through sustained word-of-mouth. Throughout the discussion, the core theme remains the shifting “moat” of the entertainment world: the control and supply of the audience itself.
How do the financial risks and creative control vary between the acquisition of a YouTube series and a creator-led distribution deal?
In an acquisition model, such as when A24 brought Kane Parsons’ Backrooms into their fold, the creator essentially joins the established studio system. This move provides the filmmaker with significant resources and a prestigious platform, but the studio typically assumes the lion’s share of the risk and, consequently, a higher degree of control over the final product. We saw this manifest in a staggering media-reported opening of $81 million domestically, proving that the studio successfully “purchased” a preassembled fandom. However, the risk here is that the audience, which built itself online with the original short reaching 84 million views, often arrives all at once. The subsequent 68% decline in the second weekend to $25.9 million highlights the volatility of this model; you are buying an opening weekend rather than a long-term theatrical hold.
Contrast this with a distribution model like the one used for Obsession, where the studio acts more as a partner than an owner. In this scenario, the filmmaker retains more creative autonomy while the studio manages the conventional release logistics. This model proved incredibly profitable for Obsession, which became one of the most successful movies of the year by making over 300 times its original budget. Instead of relying on a massive, pre-packaged digital arrival, the distribution model allowed the film to grow organically, starting at $17.2 million and actually increasing in its second and third weekends. It represents a more balanced risk-sharing approach where the YouTube origin supplies the talent, but the theatrical run itself is what cultivates the broader fandom.
What does the unprecedented success of independent companies like Glitch Productions suggest about the future of traditional studio oversight?
The rise of Glitch Productions and their handling of The Amazing Digital Circus is a direct challenge to the “corporate oversight” that has defined Hollywood for a century. By bypassing the traditional studio greenlight process, Glitch has demonstrated that a company with 1 billion online views can treat the entire theatrical system as a mere vendor for screens and ticketing. When they hired theatrical access through Fathom instead of selling their property to a major studio, they maintained absolute creative freedom and a direct line to their revenue. This “ownership model” means the creator keeps the lion’s share of the profits and the data, rather than handing those keys over to a distributor. The fact that their engagement was extended through June 18 after record-breaking presales proves that if you own the audience, you no longer need a studio to grant you permission to exist in the marketplace.
Why is the concept of a “preassembled audience” creating such a distinct performance curve at the box office compared to traditional films?
A preassembled audience, like the one that powered Backrooms to $118 million globally within a single month, operates on a different psychological trigger than the general moviegoing public. These fans have been engaging with the content for years on platforms like YouTube, meaning their “demand” is already at a boiling point before the film even hits the multiplex. This leads to a massive, front-loaded surge where the “arrival” is the primary event, often resulting in those sharp 68% drops we see in the second week. Traditional films usually rely on a slower build-up of awareness, whereas YouTube-born films treat the release as a community gathering or a series finale. It’s a sensory explosion of support that hits the theaters like a wave, which is why AMC reported its best May attendance since 2019, driven largely by these digital-first cohorts who buy their tickets the moment they go on sale.
In what ways is the traditional “moat” of major film studios being disrupted by the ability of audiences to assemble themselves on digital platforms?
For decades, the “moat” surrounding major studios was their exclusive ability to supply an audience to a film through massive marketing spends and control over distribution channels. However, we are now seeing that the supply of films was never the real moat—it was the supply of audiences, and that audience is now assembling itself on platforms where studios have no control. When a creator like Kane Parsons can generate 84 million views on a single short, he has already crossed the moat before a studio even knows his name. The studio’s role is being reduced from a “maker of hits” to a “service provider” that simply facilitates the physical viewing of a hit that already exists online. As Gower Street Analytics noted, these films are breakouts because the demand originated somewhere else, leaving studios to play catch-up with communities they didn’t help build.
What is your forecast for the future of creator-owned media in the theatrical space?
I forecast a future where the “outright rental” of the multiplex becomes a standard tier for top-tier digital creators, effectively turning movie theaters into physical hubs for global digital events. We will likely see a decline in traditional acquisitions as creators realize that keeping 100% of the property—much like Glitch Productions did with their record-setting Fathom run—is more lucrative than a one-time studio payout. The next five years will see a “vertical drama” where the fight isn’t over who can make the best film, but who owns the direct-to-consumer relationship. Studios that fail to pivot into becoming high-end service providers for these self-assembled audiences will find themselves locked out of the most profitable and energized segments of the box office. We are moving toward an era where the “greenlight” no longer happens in a boardroom, but in the view counts and engagement metrics of a YouTube comment section.
