Methodology · Q2 2026

How the Reel Index is built.

A transparent rating system for film distributors, festivals, streaming platforms, and sales agents. Six data sources. Five weighted subscores. Quarterly refresh. Distributors cannot pay to improve their grade — methodology and source data are published in full.

/ 01

Guiding principles.

The Reel Index exists to answer a single question for filmmakers, financiers, and industry buyers: which film distributors, festivals, and platforms actually serve the people who make the movies — and which ones don't?

  1. Filmmaker-sourced. Every rated entity is informed by direct filmmaker interviews and documented dealings — never by distributor marketing claims.
  2. Distributors cannot pay. No rated entity has paid, can pay, or has been offered the opportunity to pay for inclusion, exclusion, or modification of their grade.
  3. Quarterly refresh. Grades update every 90 days; major releases or contract disputes trigger interim updates.
  4. Subscore transparency. Every grade decomposes into five public subscores so filmmakers can weigh dimensions matching their priorities.
  5. Right of correction. Distributors may submit documented corrections via published Appeals process.
/ 02

The six data sources.

/ Source 01

Filmmaker Interviews

Direct conversations with directors, producers, and rights-holders who have signed with the distributor or sold rights to the platform. Anonymized aggregation; no individual-filmmaker disclosure.

/ Source 02

Box Office Mojo / Comscore

Box-office data — screens, theatrical revenue, sustained release-window analysis. Comscore for premium-VOD and home-video performance metrics.

/ Source 03

Guild Records

SAG-AFTRA, DGA, WGA filmmaker payment and dispute records. Aggregated treatment patterns, not individual cases.

/ Source 04

Festival Selection Database

Sundance, Cannes, TIFF, Berlinale, Venice, SXSW, Telluride, NYFF and 30+ additional festival selection histories for distributor pickup analysis.

/ Source 05

PACER Litigation Records

Federal-court filmmaker-distributor and platform litigation. Accounts-receivable disputes, accounting demands, contract-breach claims.

/ Source 06

Trade Press

Variety, Deadline, IndieWire, Screen Daily, Hollywood Reporter coverage of distribution deals, acquisitions, and disputes. Cross-referenced for consistency.

No single source dominates a grade. Triangulation across all six is required for any entity to receive a published rating.

/ 03

The five subscores.

Every grade decomposes into five weighted dimensions. The weights are fixed across all entities — distributors, festivals, streamers, and sales agents are graded on the same matrix.

Subscore
Weight
Visualization
Filmmaker Treatment
25%
Theatrical Reach
22%
Curatorial Reputation
20%
Library Stewardship
18%
Rights Posture
15%
Total
100%

Filmmaker Treatment (25%)

Backend share, creative-control protections, P&A investment commitments, advance payments, accounting transparency, audit-access provisions. The heaviest weight by design — backend determines whether a film can fund the next one.

Theatrical Reach (22%)

Screen count at wide release, P&A budget, sustained release-window length, exhibition relationships (AMC, Regal, Alamo, art-house networks). Critical for filmmakers seeking theatrical event status.

Curatorial Reputation (20%)

Slate quality across last 5 years, festival/awards track record (Oscars, Spirit Awards, Cannes, Berlin), critic-aggregate reception, taste-authority signaling. The signal a distributor sends to the next filmmaker.

Library Stewardship (18%)

Streaming-continuity (do titles stay available, or churn out?), physical-media commitment, restoration program, catalog longevity. The afterlife of the work.

Rights Posture (15%)

Reversion terms, foreign-sales transparency, accounting clarity, audit-access provisions, dispute-resolution practice. The fine print that defines whether you control your work in 10 years.

/ 04

Grade scale.

A+ to A− (90-100): Excellent. Industry-leading on all five dimensions; reference standard.

B+ to B− (70-89): Solid. Strong on most dimensions with one or two limitations; viable for most filmmaker profiles.

C+ to C− (50-69): Mixed. Material concerns on multiple dimensions; suitable only for specific use cases.

D+ to D− (30-49): High Risk. Severe limitations or instability; filmmakers should approach with caution.

F (0-29): Defunct, in restructuring, or critical track record. Reference only.

/ 05

Conflicts of interest.

Olly Olly Oxen Free is an independent film studio. We have submitted projects to multiple festivals and distributors in the index, and have ongoing or past commercial relationships with several. To preserve independence:

  1. Editorial firewall. The Reel Index editorial team operates separately from Olly Olly's production division.
  2. Documented relationships. Every rated entity with a current or past Olly Olly relationship is flagged in our internal conflict register.
  3. No reciprocity. Distributors who have rejected Olly Olly projects are graded identically to those who have not.
  4. Public corrections. Any factual error in a profile is corrected within 30 days of documented submission via the Appeals process.
/ 06

Refresh cadence.

Grades update quarterly. The current edition is Q2 2026 (March 2026 data cutoff, published April 2026). Major events between refreshes — bankruptcy filings, executive departures, contract disputes — trigger interim updates flagged on the relevant profile.

Methodology revisions to the subscore matrix are published as version bumps. Current methodology version: v1.0.

Want the full data feed?

The Reel Index™ is available as a RESTful API and bulk-export for production companies, talent agencies, film financiers, and studio business-affairs teams.

See pricing Browse the index