Why “marketing is in the budget” is usually wrong, what P&A really costs, and how it quietly eats the money you thought you’d see
Most first-time filmmakers plan one budget: the money it takes to make the film. Shoot it, edit it, finish it, deliver it. That’s the number they raise, the number they track, and the number they’re proud of when the film is done.
Then the film gets a real release, and a second budget shows up, one they never planned for. It’s called P&A, and it’s one of the most misunderstood costs in the business. Here’s what it is, why it’s separate, when it matters, and how it quietly reduces the money you thought you’d see.
Two Budgets, Not One
Film budgets are generally split into two very different things.
The production budget is what it costs to make the film: development, pre-production, the shoot, post-production, and delivery. Everything involved in turning a script into a finished movie.
P&A, which stands for prints and advertising, is what it costs to release the film: advertising, marketing campaigns, publicity, promotional materials, creating the digital cinema packages theaters need, and, historically, striking physical film prints (which is where “prints” in the name comes from, even though it’s now mostly digital).
These are two separate budgets, funded and accounted for separately. The confusion starts because most filmmakers only think about the first one.
Why “It’s In the Budget” Feels True, and Usually Isn’t
Here’s the nuance that trips people up, and it cuts both ways.
On the smallest films, marketing often is folded into the budget. If you’re making a micro-budget film with no real theatrical release, something that lives on festivals, a small digital release, or self-distribution, there may be little to no formal P&A at all. The modest marketing you do gets covered by the same money that made the film, or handled lean and in-house. For that filmmaker, “marketing is in the budget” is effectively true, because there’s barely any separate marketing spend to speak of.
That’s why the belief persists. Plenty of first-timers made a small film where it was all effectively one pot, and they assume it always works that way.
But the moment a studio or real distributor takes on a wide release, that changes completely. P&A becomes a separate, often massive cost, usually carried by the distributor, and it can rival or exceed what was spent making the film.
The Spectrum, In Real Numbers
The clearest way to understand P&A is to see how differently it behaves depending on the type of release. These are reported and estimated industry figures; exact P&A numbers are often undisclosed or approximate, so treat them as illustrative of the pattern rather than precise accounting.
| Film | Production Budget | Marketing / P&A | Worldwide Gross |
| Thunder Road (2018) | ~$200,000 | No separate studio P&A (self-distributed, handled lean) | ~$458,000 |
| Get Out (2017) | $4.5 million | ~$30 million (est.) | ~$255 million |
| Paranormal Activity (2007) | $15,000 | ~$18 million domestic (est.) | ~$193 million |
| The Nun (2018) | $22 million | ~$25–35 million (est.) | ~$366 million |
Look at what happens across that range. Thunder Road, made for about $200,000 and self-distributed by writer-director Jim Cummings, had no separate multi-million marketing machine at all; the promotion was handled lean, as part of running the whole operation. That’s the micro-indie reality.
Then look at Get Out. It was made for $4.5 million, but its estimated marketing spend was roughly $30 million, more than six times the cost of making the film. Paranormal Activity is the most extreme case: made for about $15,000, it received an estimated $18 million in domestic marketing once Paramount picked it up for a wide release. The marketing was over a thousand times the production budget.
The Nun shows the same dynamic at studio scale: a $22 million production with an estimated $25–35 million marketing spend, meaning the cost to sell the film exceeded the cost to make it. The pattern is consistent: the bigger and more theatrical the release, the more P&A becomes its own enormous line, separate from anything you raised to make the film.
THE RULE OF THUMB
The smaller and quieter the release, the more likely marketing is simply part of your budget. The bigger and more theatrical the release, the more P&A becomes a separate cost, one that can equal or exceed the production budget. A common industry shorthand is that a wide release needs to earn roughly twice its production budget just to cover marketing and distribution before it breaks even.
Where It Actually Hits Your Money
This is the part that matters most, and the part first-timers almost never see coming.
P&A isn’t just a cost someone else absorbs. In a traditional distribution deal, that spend is usually recouped, meaning paid back, off the top of the film’s revenue, often before you see a meaningful share of the backend. The distributor laid out real cash to market your film, and they want it back before anyone else profits. The contract will say so plainly.
So the flow looks something like this: revenue comes in, the distribution fee comes out, the P&A spend gets recouped, and only then does money start reaching the tiers where you and your investors participate. That’s why a film can be described as having “made” a large number at the box office while the filmmakers see little or nothing. The gross isn’t the filmmakers’ money, and P&A is one of the biggest reasons the number that reaches you is so much smaller than the headline.
A CAUTIONARY TALE: BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY
Bohemian Rhapsody was made for about $52 million and grossed roughly $911 million worldwide, a staggering success by any measure. And yet, according to accounting statements from the studio, the film was reported as $51 million in the red. The film’s screenwriter sued over unpaid backend, alleging the studio used its own definition of “net proceeds” and layered on distribution, marketing, and other fees to show no net profit. Whatever the outcome, the lesson stands: a film can gross nearly a billion dollars and still show a “loss” on paper once marketing, distribution fees, and participations are counted. This is exactly why understanding where P&A and fees sit, before you sign, matters so much.
P&A also directly reduces your backend. Every dollar of recoupable P&A is a dollar that comes out before your share, so a large marketing spend, even one that helped the film succeed, shrinks what’s left for the people who own the film.
What This Means for You
A few honest takeaways.
If you’re making a small film with no real theatrical ambition, don’t over-worry about P&A. Your modest marketing is likely part of your budget, handled lean, and that’s fine.
But if you’re aiming for a real distribution deal or a theatrical release, understand that P&A is a second budget, and it’s often as big as or bigger than your first. Know who’s paying it, know whether it’s recoupable from your share, and know where it sits in your waterfall, because it will come out before your backend.
And when you’re negotiating a distribution deal, the P&A terms, how much, who funds it, and how it recoups, are among the most important numbers in the entire agreement. They can be the difference between a film that “succeeds” and a film that actually pays you.
The takeaway isn’t to fear P&A. It’s to stop being surprised by it. The filmmakers who understand that there are two budgets, and how the second one gets paid back, are the ones who negotiate from knowledge instead of finding out the hard way where their money went.
The Bottom Line
Marketing a film is a second budget, and on any real release it’s often as big as, or bigger than, the one that made the movie. It usually comes out of revenue before you do. Understand that there are two budgets, know how the second one is funded and recouped, and read the P&A terms in any distribution deal as carefully as you read the rest, because that’s where a lot of your money is won or lost.
Frequently Asked Questions
Prints and advertising. It’s the cost of releasing and marketing a film, as opposed to the cost of producing it. The “prints” refers to the film prints historically struck for theaters, now mostly replaced by digital cinema packages, but the term has stuck.
Usually not, once a film has a real release. The production budget covers making the film; P&A is a separate budget for marketing and distributing it, typically funded and accounted for separately, often by the distributor. On very small films with no wide release, the little marketing there is may effectively come out of the same pot, which is why the two get confused.
It varies enormously with the type of release. On a self-distributed micro-indie, it may be negligible. On a wide studio release, P&A frequently rivals or exceeds the production budget. A common industry rule of thumb is that a film needs to earn about twice its production budget just to cover marketing and distribution before breaking even.
Because the reported budget is only the production budget. Distribution fees, recoupable P&A, talent participations, and other expenses all come out of revenue before net profit is calculated, and studio accounting can define “net” in ways that leave little or nothing. A film can gross enormous sums and still show a paper loss once all of that is counted.
In a traditional deal, recoupable P&A is generally paid back off the top of revenue, before the tiers where filmmakers and investors participate. So a large marketing spend directly reduces, and delays, what reaches your backend. Where P&A sits in your waterfall, and whether it’s recoupable from your share, is something to understand and negotiate before you sign.
Related Reading
- The Revenue Waterfall, Explained How money flows back after a film earns — and where P&A sits in the order of payment.
- Understanding Distribution Deals What to look for, and negotiate, before you sign your film away.
