A thought experiment about what it might take to finance, produce, and release low-cost genre films repeatedly across African markets, inspired by recent conversations with industry professionals. I've also been consulting on an East African genre-focused script-to-market residency — hence my current headspace. I've also been approached a few times over the past year to consider producing. I certainly don't have the experience. However, it's a role I can see myself, and African Film Press (AFP) more broadly, playing at some point in the future. One thing at a time.
More specifically, I have been thinking about what an African version of Blumhouse might look like in 2026. For the uninitiated, Blumhouse Productions is the U.S. film and television company founded by producer Jason Blum, best known for turning relatively inexpensive horror films like "Paranormal Activity," "Insidious," and "The Purge" into major commercial successes. Although some of its films failed, enough succeeded, sometimes on an extraordinary scale, for the company to keep producing and turn individual successes into franchises.
Why Blumhouse? Because I think its model is useful for thinking about how African producers might sustain regular production over time when production capital is limited, cinema revenue is uncertain, and access to distribution is concentrated among a small number of companies. Blumhouse controlled how much money it put at risk on each film, focused on genres that could work with small casts and limited locations, and built relationships with major distributors that could take a successful film to a much larger audience. The interesting part is the repeatability: several films, a consistent commercial identity, a way to survive failures, and enough participation in successful properties for one hit to affect the economics of the next slate.
So what would it take for one African producer or company to finance genre films repeatedly, release them across several African and international markets, survive the ones that fail, and retain enough rights to build a lasting business?
My starting point is five basic components: low production costs, a steady supply of genre projects, reliable release partners, revenue commitments from several markets, and ownership of rights that can earn money over time and sustain the business.
Some African producers work across national borders. Public agencies, private funds, and multilateral institutions finance films. Local cinema distributors, international sales companies, television groups, and streaming services acquire African work.
I haven't identified an African company that clearly combines all five in one repeatable operating model.
What Blumhouse Actually Did
Before the hits, Jason Blum founded Blumhouse Productions in the U.S. in 2000, after gaining experience in film acquisitions and distribution at Arrow Entertainment, a New York independent film company he joined in 1994. He knew how distributors valued rights, how films reached cinemas and television, and how marketing affected the commercial result.
To be sure, low-cost horror already had a long commercial history in the U.S. George A. Romero’s "Night of the Living Dead," made in and around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, cost about $125,000 and earned an estimated $2.5 million in box-office receipts in 1969. Three decades later, Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez made "The Blair Witch Project" with a shoot that cost around $50,000. Post-production and release preparation increased its cost to about $200,000, and the film went on to gross $248.6 million worldwide after opening in the United States in July 1999. There were certainly other scenarios. Collectively, these films demonstrated how horror could turn limited resources, unfamiliar actors, and simple, often single locations into commercial advantages.
By all accounts, "Paranormal Activity" became Blumhouse’s turning point. Oren Peli filmed the supernatural horror feature in his home in San Diego, California, for a reported production cost of just $15,000. Paramount Pictures began its limited U.S. release on 25 September 2009 and expanded it nationwide on 16 October 2009. The film eventually grossed $193.4 million worldwide.
The $15,000 figure was for the original shoot, not the film audiences eventually saw in cinemas. After the acquisition, Paramount reportedly spent an additional $200,000 on a new ending and post-production work. The studio also paid for marketing and distribution. Still, "Paranormal Activity's" near-$200 million worldwide gross was extraordinary relative to its total budget.
The result demonstrated the commercial possibilities of combining a very inexpensive film with major-studio distribution. “Blumhouse applied that logic to later films including "Insidious," reportedly produced for $1.5 million and grossing $100 million worldwide; "The Purge," produced for $3 million and grossing $89.3 million worldwide; and, of course, Jordan Peele’s smash "Get Out," produced for $4.5 million and grossing $255 million worldwide on its original release.
Low budgets gave Blumhouse room to take creative risks. Directors could receive substantial creative authority and a potential share of profits in exchange for reduced upfront fees. A contained horror film could use a small cast, a limited number of locations, and few expensive visual effects. One commercial success could cover losses from several unsuccessful releases.
Blumhouse secured a three-year first-look production agreement with Universal Pictures in 2011. A first-look agreement gives a studio the first opportunity to consider a producer’s projects. It doesn't require the studio to release every film. Universal and Blumhouse announced a new ten-year agreement in July 2014.
The public record from that period shows Blumhouse’s low-budget production discipline, franchise participation, and long relationship with major studio distributors. Individual ownership arrangements vary by film and franchise.
For the African company imagined here, retaining some intellectual property and exploitation rights is a must. A company that repeatedly makes inexpensive films for buyers can build production capacity and revenue while accumulating relatively little long-term ownership. I'm more interested in a company that can survive financial failures while keeping enough participation in successful properties for those successes to strengthen the next slate.
Blum explained another important part of the economics in a January 2017 interview with Filmmaker Magazine (Working Through Fear: An Interview with Blumhouse’s Jason Blum). A Blumhouse film costing about $4 million–$5 million didn't have to become a theatrical hit for the company to recover much of its production cost. He estimated that television, streaming/digital, and international rights could bring in roughly $4 million even if the film didn't receive a wide cinema release.
That calculation helped determine how much Blumhouse was willing to spend in the first place. If a $5 million film could recover about $4 million without succeeding in cinemas, the company’s financial exposure was much smaller than the production budget alone suggested.
Easy enough to understand.
Of course, Blumhouse now operates at a different size. It completed a merger with Atomic Monster, the production company founded by filmmaker James Wan, in 2024. But the business ethos remains mostly the same.
One company, 54 national markets
The United States has one dominant currency, one principal commercial ratings system, a large cinema network and distributors that can organize a national release. Africa has 54 countries, many currencies, several major business languages, different classification rules and very unequal access to cinemas, pay television and streaming services.
African Screen Intelligence (ASI), the research and data unit of African Film Press, had verified a minimum of 1,698 commercial cinema screens across 37 African countries as of 28 August 2026. This figure is a documented floor, not a complete continental total.
A company can't treat those 54 countries as a single theatrical market. It would need a portfolio of release arrangements across borders. A Nigerian film might begin with cinemas and pay television in English-speaking West Africa. A South African film might rely on local cinemas, regional pay television and an international streaming licence. A French-language production from Senegal or Côte d’Ivoire would require distributors and broadcasters serving Francophone African audiences. A film from Egypt or Morocco would need an Arabic-language strategy and access to Middle Eastern and North African buyers.
I can imagine the continental ambition existing at the company level, meaning ownership, financing relationships, rights management, and the film library. Individual productions would still need a defined home market, language strategy, and release roadmap.
So, What If We Narrow It to One Country — Nigeria
Nigeria has one of the continent’s most active commercial production cultures, an established cinema business, experienced crews, local distributors, and an active pay-television audience. English is widely used in business and screen production, alongside films and television programmes in Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo.
Our ASI verifies 346 fixed screens reporting commercial cinema activity in Nigeria as of August 2026. That gives a Nigerian production company a domestic theatrical base, although one far smaller than the U.S. market that supported Blumhouse as the company rose.
Nigeria has also tested several versions of the multi-film relationship this thought experiment calls for. Netflix signed multi-title agreements with EbonyLife Media in 2020 and filmmaker Kunle Afolayan in 2021. Prime Video followed in 2022 with agreements involving Anthill Studios, Nemsia Films, and filmmaker Jáde Osiberu’s Greoh Studios. Some commissioned original productions; others secured streaming rights after cinema release. Their budgets, licence fees, marketing commitments and producer rights were not disclosed.
Of course, Prime Video later reduced its investment and staffing in Africa and the Middle East in January 2024. Netflix’s Nigerian commissioning also declined. The period established that major international buyers would enter multi-film relationships with Nigerian producers, even as those relationships contracted quickly.
Canal+ is currently working with Flying Whale, a label created by Lagos-based Anakle Films, on ten low-cost television films. Canal+ approached Anakle after the company’s 2023 crime thriller "The Black Book" and asked founder Editi Effiong whether it could make films at budgets several times below that film’s reported $1 million cost. Flying Whale completed and delivered four by July 2026. The individual budgets, Canal+ payments, licence periods and rights retained by Flying Whale have not been disclosed.
Nile Media Entertainment Group is building its own genre and distribution business. Nigerian film executive Moses Babatope launched Nile in 2024 as a production, distribution and exhibition group. Its Nile Entertainment subsidiary became the West African theatrical distributor for Universal Pictures and Paramount Pictures in February 2026. Nile, U.K. action studio Action Xtreme and 22Summers, the production company founded by Idris Elba and Gina Carter, have also announced AFA Action Films Africa, a slate of West African action films with Nile handling African distribution.
The hypothetical Nigerian film company could develop an initial slate of four to six contained horror and thriller films in English and selected Nigerian languages, without committing production money to all of them at once. It would seek a multi-film agreement with a regional television or streaming group like Canal+/MultiChoice, serving Nigeria and other Anglophone West African markets, along with theatrical distribution for selected films across the region (FilmOne and Nile most obviously) and an international (including the rest of Africa) sales partner for territories not covered by those agreements.
Netflix is another potential major buyer, although it's not currently entering the kinds of multi-film agreements with Nigerian producers that it did earlier in the decade. Based on conversations with producers, I understand that the streamer currently requires theatrical distribution in Nigeria before it will even consider a project for streaming acquisition or other investment, including those still in development. Smaller Nigerian platforms, including Kava and Circuits, could provide additional digital release options, but their reach and financial capacity to anchor a multi-film agreement of this kind are not publicly known.
Before each film goes into production, the company would try to secure part of its revenue from those arrangements. Additionally, the producer would retain enough rights or revenue participation for successful films to contribute financially to later productions.
The Missing Revenue Floor
The main obstacle is the lack of published financial information needed to estimate how much a film could reliably earn without a wide cinema release.
African film deals rarely disclose what broadcasters, streaming services, distributors, or international buyers actually pay, or how much income returns to the producer. Without those figures, it's hard to know what production budget the available market can support.
Jason Blum had enough information from the U.S. market to estimate in 2017 that a Blumhouse film costing about $4 million–$5 million could recover roughly $4 million from television, digital, and international rights even without a wide theatrical release. A comparable published benchmark for African films does not exist. African Film Press (AFP) is building a defensible model as I type this.
Buyers would then have to make offers based on information largely unavailable to producers, including their own audience data, previous performance of comparable films, revenue in particular territories, and the value of the rights being acquired.
The hypothetical production company would therefore have to build its own record of what the market will pay — a kind of reverse-engineering. Each completed deal would show what a broadcaster, streaming service, distributor, or sales company was willing to pay for specific rights in a specific market. Over several films, those transactions could provide budgeting information the public record currently lacks.
The company would also need to learn what subtitling, dubbing, classification, delivery, and cross-border marketing add to the cost of reaching target markets.
That history could then inform the budget of the next slate, and so on...
The company might begin with two films, then expand only after it has actual production and revenue data from those releases. Geographic expansion would follow proven buyer relationships and audience demand.
What Existing Players Already Provide
The pieces of this model already exist in different places.
On the investment side, CANEX Creations Inc, the intellectual-property investment subsidiary backed by Afreximbank, is already investing in film. CCInc chief Osahon Akpata said the instrument typically invests $500,000–$5 million and finances about 20%–40% of a project’s budget. It looks for experienced producers, commercial track records, other financing, and evidence of distribution or repayment, including a minimum guarantee or presale. Its public terms don't disclose how much intellectual property it would own.
On development, Next Narrative Africa announced a planned $40 million commercial equity fund alongside a nonprofit development operation. By August 2026, its first nine projects had collectively received $450,000 in development grants, while the separate $40 million commercial fund had disclosed no production financing. The nonprofit work is now part of the recently launched Next Narrative Africa Institute, which is fundraising for future development grants, research, and policy work.
Palmtrees has a wider geographic mandate, but its model overlaps directly with part of this thought experiment. The screenplay development incubator founded by Nigerian-American filmmaker, producer, and former Netflix executive Funa Maduka selects eight to ten feature-length genre projects from writers across Africa and other Global South markets for a nine-month development programme. American film company NEON (also distributor for the Esiri brothers' Cannes 2026 entry "Clarissa") has an exclusive first-look window on every project that completes the programme. Writers retain full ownership of their work, Palmtrees doesn't acquire rights to the screenplays, and it remains attached to the projects regardless of where or how they eventually move forward.
At the microbudget production level, South Africa’s National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF) is financing five features at R4.5 million–R6 million each (about $272,000–$363,000), with Cape Town-based Indigenous Film Distribution attached as distributor. The programme opened in January 2026, and the five projects were approved by April. Where the NFVF supplies the full production capital, the production company owns 100% of the completed film’s rights. The distributor receives a five-year licence, and the NFVF recoups its investment before deferred fees and later participation. The programme is limited to family and coming-of-age films.
Canal+ comes closest to combining several of the remaining functions. Its control of MultiChoice gives the French media group pay-television, commissioning, and distribution operations across much of sub-Saharan Africa, while its STUDIOCANAL arm adds film financing, production and international distribution capacity. As already noted — also at the above microbudget level — in Nigeria, Canal+ is working with Anakle Films’ Flying Whale label on a ten-film slate of low-cost television features. Its STUDIOCANAL arm is also largely financing and will distribute the international-facing South African feature "The Road Home" (and other similar high-profile projects) produced in Cape Town as part of commitments connected to the MultiChoice acquisition.
Canal+ also owns STUDIOCANAL’s UK-based Sixth Dimension, which finances, produces, acquires and distributes horror, thriller and science-fiction films. No African Sixth Dimension slate has been announced.
What the Company Would Still Need
The company would have to function as a producer, rights holder and distribution coordinator, while also raising enough committed capital to cover the portion of each film’s budget not financed by broadcasters, streaming services, distributors or other partners, and to absorb some losses without stopping production altogether.
Of course, very few independent production companies on the continent — and in the diaspora — would be in a position to raise capital on those terms. Blumhouse was founded by someone who already had industry credibility, buyer knowledge, relationships, and some producing experience, even though he hadn't yet established the low-budget horror production model that defined the company several years later.
However, the African/diaspora company wouldn't necessarily need to raise the full cost of an entire slate at once; at the start, committed capital could be drawn film by film as projects are financed and approved for production, while broadcasters, streaming services, distributors, or other partners could remain independent, with contracts defining what each party pays, receives, and controls.
Its management would certainly need experience in production, acquisitions, distribution, finance, and rights. Blum’s own background in acquisitions and distribution mattered.
The slate could concentrate on horror, supernatural thrillers, and contained science fiction — genres that can accommodate small casts, limited locations, and controlled production costs. The stories themselves could be rooted in an abundance of untapped cultural traditions and African histories.
Each film would enter production with its release arrangements substantially defined. A multi-film agreement would need to state how many films the buyer was committing to, the minimum payment for each accepted film, delivery requirements, and when unused rights returned to the producer.
Key creative talent could participate financially in successful films, with guaranteed fees and clearly defined revenue participation.
More Money Will Not Produce Enough Competition on Its Own
More production capital will have limited effect if the same small group of TV companies, streaming services, cinema distributors and international sales companies continue to control most routes to audiences.
Producers gain bargaining power when several buyers compete for films and rights. Of course. More independent acquisition budgets would also create alternatives when one platform, broadcaster, or distributor changes strategy.
The same applies to finance. Different companies and projects need different amounts of capital, risk tolerance, and deal structures. A low-cost genre production company shouldn't have to fit the same investment criteria as a multimillion-dollar international co-production.
There is some wry irony in all this. Add a few zeroes and change the job description, and this exercise starts to look familiar. Afreximbank, Canal+, Next Narrative Africa Fund, and others are also trying to determine what projects cost, what audiences will pay for, and which deal structures can support continued production. The scale changes; the basic problem does not.
We're all still figuring "this thing" out, although “this thing” means something different for a producer, financier, distributor, broadcaster, or exhibitor.
On our side, we're figuring it out at African Film Press (AFP) too, including what information the sector actually needs, how to build it, how to make it commercially sustainable, and where our own work fits in this changing ecosystem.
I say it often because it continues to be true: building anything durable across the "African screen" sector, in all its layers, is a long game of trial, adjustment, repetition, and patience. Some of us are just better resourced.
For an African Blumhouse, success would begin with being able to absorb some failures, learn from them, and still finance the next project.
I spent a fair amount of time thinking through and interrogating this thought experiment before publishing it, so I’d be interested to hear from producers, financiers, distributors, and others in this subscriber community.
Originally dispatched to Akoroko Premium subscribers