Comment
Marketing costs and independent films, an uneasy mix, says Rahul Puri
How many of us actually watch small films? Films that perhaps don’t have the big star cast or the big directors. Maybe there are films that don’t have the backing of big studios and will rely heavily on word of mouth from the target group, referring it to peers. How many of us really go to the theatre, pay Rs 250+ and watch these films?
I doubt the answer to my question is, many, if we are being honest. The reality is that in spite of most of us moaning about the quality of storytelling in films, we generally base our film watching decisions on factors like star cast and the amount of marketing visibility. The small films usually lack these ingredients and therefore, they are not top-most in the minds of the viewers when it comes to choice for consumption. And this is usually despite the potential of their story.
Forgive me for this roundabout way of getting to the point. There is a huge issue of marketing films in our business and the smaller, independent films (the films a lot of people laud as ‘good cinema’) usually ends up with the short end of the stick. An old time distributor would call these films ‘art-house’ or say they aren’t commercial and therefore, they can’t be marketed well. But there is a distinction between something that is targeted to a niche and something that is completely unmarketable.
One of the large issues that our business has to address over the next few years are niche films and how we deal with them and create a viable business model for them. The West has art house theatres and a thriving independent circuit including channels, festivals and markets where films out of the mainstream can find a way to be commercial in nature.
India has to find a way to resolve this issue too. We have many terrific films that don’t make it to theatres and therefore, we deprive our audiences of seeing some really great films. Look at the films that win National Awards. How many of us actually see them outside their home state? Would it not make sense for the rest of the country to see them? Are these stories that wouldn’t resonate with other Indian audiences? I can’t say the answer is yes for sure but in general it has to be true.
Marketing costs and promotional expenses is one of the main bone of contention here. A film is considered impossible to release if it can’t justify a certain spend on marketing and promotion. The absolute amount of this figure has grown over the years thanks to increase in prices of media as well as the growth of media outlets and platforms. Today a film is deemed to have had a poor release if it doesn’t do the latest reality shows, launch a motion poster at a 5 Star hotel or do an eight city tour for press and promotion. All this, plus traditional forms of advertising and other marketing tools costs money. Lots of it. Where do little, independent films get this money from?
Moreover, if a small film does get this finance, how do they decide what is actually effective and what is not? Marketing campaigns have a template to them these days and all agencies try to enforce this upon producers stating previous successes or competitors spend. This sometimes is relevant but mostly it’s about consuming the all important inventory that most of the agencies, channels and platforms need to exhaust in order to enhance profitability. Whether it’s needed, effective or even useful for a particular film is secondary at times. Thus, a small film is over burdened making it more unprofitable thus perpetuating the cycle that these films are generally a huge risk.
So what’s the solution? Well, better and more innovative marketing planning, campaigns and execution. Most of which is probably available and there are agencies and marketing gurus out there capable of delivering. It will just take a producer or a studio the gumption of saying no to the herd mentality and giving it a real shot. The filmmakers really deserve it.
MUMBAI: 2025 will be remembered as the year India’s OTT industry stopped chasing scale for its own sake and began reckoning with how audiences actually consume content. Completion rates fell, patience wore thin and the limits of long-form excess became impossible to ignore. In this guest column, Pratap Jain, founder and CEO of ChanaJor, traces how micro-drama moved from the fringes to the centre of viewing behaviour, why short-form fiction emerged as a retention engine rather than a trend, and how platforms that respected time, habit and emotional payoff were the ones that truly grew up in 2025.
If there is one thing 2025 will be remembered for in the Indian OTT industry, it’s this: the industry finally stopped pretending.
Stopped pretending that bigger automatically meant better.
Stopped pretending that viewers had endless time.
Stopped pretending that scale without retention was success.
What began as a quiet reset in 2023 and a cautious correction in 2024 turned into a very visible shift in 2025. Business models matured. Content strategies tightened. And most importantly, platforms started aligning themselves with how Indians actually watch content, not how the industry wished they would.
At the centre of this shift was micro-drama—not as a trend, but as a behavioural inevitability.
When OTT finally understood the time problem
For years, long episodes were treated as a marker of seriousness. A 45–60 minute runtime was almost a badge of credibility. Shorter formats were pushed to the margins, labelled as “snack content” or “mobile-only.”
That belief quietly collapsed in 2025.
What platform data showed very clearly was not a drop in interest—but a drop in patience. Viewers weren’t rejecting stories. They were rejecting commitment.
Across platforms, the same patterns appeared:
* First-episode drop-offs on long-form shows kept increasing
* Completion rates continued to slide
* Viewers were sampling more titles but finishing fewer
At the same time, shows with episodes in the six to 10 minute range started showing the opposite behaviour: higher completion, higher repeat viewing, and stronger daily habit formation.
Micro-drama didn’t win because it was short. It won because it respected time.
Micro-Drama didn’t arrive loudly. It took over quietly.
There was no single moment when micro-drama “launched” in India. It crept in through dashboards and retention charts.
By mid-2025, it was clear that viewers were happy watching four, five, sometimes six short episodes in one sitting—even when they wouldn’t finish a single long episode. Romance, relationship drama, slice-of-life conflict, and grounded comedy worked especially well.
This wasn’t disposable content. It was compressed storytelling.
In shorter formats, there was no room for indulgence. Every episode had to move the story forward. Weak writing was punished faster. Strong writing was rewarded immediately.
Micro-drama raised the bar instead of lowering it.
Where ChanaJor naturally fit into this shift
ChanaJor didn’t pivot to micro-drama in 2025 because the market demanded it. In many ways, the platform was already built around the same viewing behaviour.
From the beginning, ChanaJor focused on short-to-mid-length fictional stories that felt close to everyday Indian life—hostels, rented flats, office romances, small-town relationships, young people figuring things out. Stories that didn’t need heavy context or cinematic scale to connect.
What worked in ChanaJor’s favour in 2025 was clarity:
* A clearly defined audience
* Tight episode lengths
* Storytelling that prioritised emotion and pace over spectacle
While several platforms rushed to copy global micro-drama formats, ChanaJor stayed rooted in familiar Indian settings and conflicts. That familiarity mattered. Viewers didn’t have to “enter” the world of the show—it already felt like theirs.
Why audiences started responding differently
One of the biggest misconceptions going into 2025 was that audiences wanted shorter content because their attention spans had reduced. That wasn’t entirely true.
What viewers actually wanted was meaningful payoff per minute.
On platforms like ChanaJor, episodes didn’t waste time setting the mood for ten minutes. Conflicts arrived early. Characters were recognisable within moments. Emotional hooks landed fast.
A typical consumption pattern looked like real life:
* One episode during a break
* Two more before sleeping
* A few the next day
This is how viewing habits are built—not through marketing spends, but through comfort and consistency.
Viewers came back not because every show was a blockbuster, but because they knew what kind of experience to expect.
2025 was also the year OTT faced business reality
The other big change in 2025 was on the business side. Subscriber growth slowed. Discounts stopped hiding churn. Customer acquisition costs rose.
Platforms were forced to ask harder questions:
* Are viewers finishing what they start?
* Are they returning without reminders?
* Is this content worth what we’re spending on it?
This is where micro-drama began outperforming expectations. A well-written short series could deliver sustained engagement without massive budgets. It didn’t peak for one weekend and disappear—it stayed alive through repeat viewing.
Platforms like ChanaJor benefited because they weren’t chasing inflated launch numbers. The focus was on consistency and retention, not noise.
Failures Became Visible Faster
2025 also exposed weaknesses brutally.
Several platforms assumed micro-drama was a shortcut—short episodes, quick shoots, instant traction. What they discovered was that bad writing fails faster in short formats than in long ones.
Viewers dropped off within minutes. Episodes were abandoned mid-way. Weak stories had nowhere to hide.
Micro-drama didn’t forgive laziness. It amplified it.
The platforms that survived were the ones that treated short storytelling with the same seriousness as long-form—sometimes more.
OTT Stopped Chasing Prestige and Started Chasing Habit
Perhaps the most important shift in 2025 wasn’t technical or creative—it was psychological.
OTT stopped trying to look like cinema. It stopped chasing validation through scale and awards alone. It began behaving like what it actually is in people’s lives: a daily companion.
Platforms like ChanaJor found their space here because that mindset was already baked in. The goal wasn’t to dominate a weekend launch. It was to quietly become part of someone’s everyday viewing routine.
That shift changed everything—from release strategies to how success was measured.
What 2025 Ultimately Taught the Industry
By the end of the year, three truths were impossible to ignore:
* Time is the most valuable thing a viewer gives you
* Retention matters more than reach
* Format must follow behaviour, not ego
Micro-drama didn’t take over because it was fashionable. It took over because it fit real life.
Looking Ahead
Micro-drama is not replacing long-form storytelling. It is redefining the baseline of engagement.
Longer shows will survive—but only when they earn their length. Short-form fiction will continue to evolve, becoming sharper, more emotionally confident, and better written.
Platforms like ChanaJor have shown that it’s possible to grow without shouting—by understanding the audience, respecting their time, and telling stories that feel real.
2025 wasn’t the year OTT became smaller. It was the year it became smarter.
Note: The views expressed in this article are solely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect our own.
