“Small Screens, Big Money”. - Rethinking the Future of Audio Visual Content
Is it true that “the revenue increases as the screen gets smaller”?
The title might sound a bit confusing at first, so let me explain the argument to be discussed here: the smaller the screen a piece of visual content is made for, the higher the potential for revenue for its maker.
In practical terms: releasing a film in the cinema usually offers the least earning potential, especially relative to the high investment it requires. On the other hand, short videos intended for mobile phones have much higher revenue potential — and lower risk, due to reduced production costs.
In this article, I’ll examine this concept (which isn’t mine), question its validity and share my own personal perspective — as someone who worked in the audio-visual content world for many years (not anymore, BTW).
Skepticism as a Way of Life
If you know this blog, you know I’m always out to find another angle — to play devil’s advocate and dive deeper. I’m naturally suspicious of overly simplified slogans. And this time is no different.
But first — let’s genuinely explore this idea about smaller screens. It seems to make sense. It matches our intuition and common understanding of today’s media landscape. Later on, we’ll critique it, and finally draw some reasoned conclusions.
Why Smaller Screens Equal Bigger Revenue Potential
Anyone reading this likely already knows: TikTok, Instagram, and short-form video platforms draw millions of views, often made cheaply — phone selfies, minimal crew. Compare that to theatrical films, which require major funding and often don’t earn back their costs. Simple logic.
Some Numbers and Quotes
In April 2025, the Hollywood Reporter published a report showing that film production days in Los Angeles dropped by 22% (Q1 vs. Q1 2024). TV production declined by 30% in the same period and over five years, there’s been a 50% decline on average.
Perhaps you’re thinking it’s a fluke? Seasonal? Local? — The article focuses only on LA, so this might be part of a bigger shift. More on that later.
Meanwhile, over the past 10 years, cinema attendance has dropped by 80%, while YouTube viewership has risen by 138%.
These insights come partially from Canadian documentarian Luke Forsyth, who runs a YouTube channel full of tech reviews, gear tips and occasional money talk about the film industry. He’s thoughtful, humble, and never presents opinions as fact — I highly recommend his channel.
Forsyth also says it’s harder than ever to sell shows to streaming platforms. I disagree with him here: he brings no data, and platforms today are investing more in local content worldwide, moving away from the once-dominant “North American content for everyone” model. Click on the links I added, they’re proving my counter-argument to Forsyth.
The Originator of “Small Screens, Big Bucks”
The phrase comes from Scott Galloway, a marketing professor and successful entrepreneur. Forsyth’s video essentially expands on Galloway’s statement, and I’m offering a third layer of commentary — Luke interprets Scott; I interpret Luke.
Galloway is sharp and honest. In a 2022 blog post on the future of television, he predicted with clarity how news and live sports are TV’s equivalent of trucks in the automobile industry — the “bread and butter” needed to fund everything else. Not surprisingly, since them, even Netflix has entered sports broadcasting, added ads (part of the global FAST trend), and begun offering games — which quite literally saved them, in my opinion.
As of July 2025, Netflix is reporting record profits.
Galloway once joked on a podcast:
“Show me a documentary filmmaker and I’ll show you their wealthy spouse.”
Ouch. I was part of that statement. It is painfully true, form the other side. More on it later.
It’s obviously an over-generalization — but it captures a truth. If not a wealthy partner, maybe they have family money, a lecturer’s job, or freelance work as service providers (editors and cinematographers make more than directors). Without those options, if they still make a living, them most probably they don’t make true documentaries, but “reality shows disguised as docs.”
He wraps it up:
“If you’re creating visual content for anything larger than a smartphone, I really hope you love what you’re doing — because it’ll be tough.”
Is the Curtain Closing on Cinema?
So is cinema finished? Some elite, self-indulgent hobby for the rich?
We’ve got Galloway — TV personality, millionaire — and Forsyth, a grounded documentarian with modest income. Logically, you’d think the wealthy guy knows money. But let’s lend Forsyth a fair listen:
He admits Galloway’s point is solid — revenue shrinks when screens get bigger. The data backs it. But Luke also believes there’ll always be demand for quality content, and that type of content — he says — is harder to deliver in short-form, smartphone-friendly formats.
Hold on — Luke is hiding two claims in one:
- There’s enduring demand for quality content.
- Quality content requires long form and large screens.
His proof? A single word: Quibi.
Quibi — An Epic Failure
Quibi was a mobile-first video streaming platform, launched in 2020 by Jeffrey Katzenberg. It raised $1.75 billion from major investors like Disney.
Its concept? Premium short-form content, only for smartphones. It lasted just about six months.
In his video, Forsyth says he worked for Quibi at that time. He describes filming breathtaking jungle footage — which never got edited — because the platform folded so fast.
His takeaway: “Short-form content made for smartphones-ony has no economic viability” and Quibi is the proof.
I disagree. That’s a bold conclusion, and an unproven one.
Forsyth also says YouTube Originals failed for similar reasons: people just don’t want “serious” content on YouTube. Again — this is questionable.
Here’s why:
YouTube Originals flopped mostly because they picked bad content and moved away from their platform’s strengths. Even YouTube admits it.
Meanwhile, long-form, high-quality content on YouTube is thriving:
- DW Documentaries gets millions of views.
- Many broadcasters are seeing real popularity and income on YouTube.
What is “Quality Content” anyway?
Forsyth keeps referring to “quality content” — as if everyone agreed on what that means.
I think we actually do.
Sure, the argument “who decides what’s quality?” gets thrown around a lot, but it’s childish. Deep down, we do know what it is — so let’s stop pretending. No, quality and popularity don’t go hand-in-hand. That’s a contradiction. Mass appeal usually means compromised depth. Let’s not roll our eyes — that’s just how it is.
** for those who wish exploring this idea further — see here what High Culture means.
Who’s Right?
Both Galloway (marketing-savvy mogul) and Forsyth (on-the-ground filmmaker) offer valuable insight. But some of their claims deserve pushback.
True:
Yes, Galloway is right — small screens and short videos do increase revenue potential. I told my film students back in 2012 they should become YouTubers and that way, fund their real movies with the revenue they make as content creators, something which they can do in a much higher quality than most other content creators. They thought I was nuts — but reality proves I wasn’t (why didn’t I do it myself? because I shifted careers into tech. now I build software tools for filmmakers: here).
Also true:
Yes, Forsyth is right — quality content will always be needed. But his assumption that it must be long and big-screen-friendly? Arbitrary. People’s choice often depends on time, mood, and weekend freedom.
One big caveat:
Galloway operates from a TV and digital marketing world. Forsyth speaks from experience as a documentary filmmaker. They look like they’re debating the same subject — but they’re not.
In logic terms, we’d call this a false equivalence.
Final Thoughts and the Personal Angle
- Small screens and short formats can bring in more money, but that’s not the whole picture.
- Don’t give up your dream films. At the same time — start a YouTube / Tik Tok channel and let your filmmaker skills shine. You have a giant edge over basic creators who can’t shoot, light, edit or sound design.
- Everyone has a niche. Lean into your thing. Someone I met once turned rare cactus knowledge into a business via eBay. The platform’s not the issue. Passion is.
Oh, and about that suggestion…
“Marry into wealth, or be born rich, so you can make movies freely.”
Hmm. Let me revise that: Don’t. It comes with baggage. Independence beats comfort (usually).
I promised a personal note, so here we go:
I was a documentary filmmaker 23 years. I lived exactly what Scott Galloway is talking about. He is 100% right.
I thought I could make a living from filmmaking, because it worked for a few years. Then I understood it was temporary miracle. A short term luck, an exception that lasted 7 wonderful years. It ended and never came back. Then I noticed that in my age group, the colleagues who survived and kept making films came from rich families or had spouses that made enough money to cover the filmmaking adventure. Thing is, they do not talk about it since they feel embarrassed. So it remains a secret.
A TL;DR conclusion:
The dream of long films on big screens isn’t dead — but it’s complicated. Meanwhile, your small-screen strategy may very well fund your big-screen one.
