# Tension Economy Evaluation Template Score each question 0–10 using the guidance below. Total the scores and read the verdict at the end. --- ## Section 1: Tension Identification (Critical) ### Q1 — Cultural fault line in one sentence? State the specific contradiction the project forces the audience to take a side on. Format: "Who gets to ___?" or "[X] vs [Y]." - **0** — Cannot be stated. The project is about a topic but takes no position that forces the audience to locate itself. - **5** — A fault line exists but is fuzzy or broad ("modern life is empty," "technology is alienating," "family is complicated"). - **10** — A precise one-sentence statement of the specific cultural contradiction. A stranger reading it would know exactly which side they're on. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ### Q2 — Is it a live debate? - **0** — The debate is settled, historical, or culturally exhausted. No active sides remain. - **5** — The debate exists but is niche, slow-moving, or cooling. Hard to name current participants. - **10** — The debate is active in public culture right now, with real opposing sides. You can name publications, communities, or events currently arguing it. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ### Q3 — Lifecycle stage? - **0** — Burned out. The tension peaked and public conversation is moving on. Audiences are tired of this. - **5** — Emerging. Underground energy, not yet mainstream. Score 5 only if release is 12+ months away and the tension will plausibly peak by then. - **10** — Peaking. Maximum energy, mainstream conversation, not yet exhausted. This score assumes you can release within 6 months. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ## Section 2: Audience Definition (Critical) ### Q4 — Core audience specifically named? - **0** — Defined by demographics only ("adults 18–45," "film fans," "general audience"). - **5** — Named by lived experience ("immigrant parents") but not by specific relationship to the fault line. - **10** — Named by psychographic + demographic + emotional relationship to the fault line. Example: "women in their 30s who resolved an identity conflict between professional ambition and domestic expectation and feel the cost of both." Score: [ ] / 10 --- ### Q5 — Core size estimated with a platform map? - **0** — No estimate, or a round number with no reasoning behind it. - **5** — An estimate exists but is not derived from public data, or data exists but congregation points are generic ("Instagram," "Twitter," "film Twitter"). - **10** — Estimate derived from public population or platform data with visible math. Congregation points are specific: named subreddits, Discord servers, organizations, events, or publications where Core already gathers. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ### Q6 — Will Core pay premium? - **0** — No evidence. Unknown, or structurally unlikely (Core is too young, too price-sensitive, or the format is not premium-compatible). - **5** — Plausible but unverified. Reasonable inference but no supporting data. - **10** — Strong evidence from comparable project performance, community spending behavior, or stated audience willingness to pay. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ## Section 3: Shareability Design (Critical) ### Q7 — 3–5 shareable moments built in? - **0** — No identifiable moments. - **5** — 1–2 moments exist but are incidental to the story, not structurally built for sharing. - **10** — 3–5 specific moments that are visceral, visually distinct, or quotable and are structural to the work — scenes, lines, or images that are inevitable given the premise, not accidental. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ### Q8 — What does someone say to a friend to describe why they must watch this? Write the actual sentence. Then score it. - **0** — Cannot be answered with a specific statement. "It's really good" is not an answer. - **5** — A general reason exists ("the lead performance is extraordinary") but no specific hook that implies an experience. - **10** — A precise, concrete sentence a viewer would actually say — one that implies an experience, not just a judgment. "There's a scene where she does X and you cannot look away" is an answer. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ## Section 4: Timing & Change Windows (Important) ### Q9 — 3 upcoming change windows identified? Name them before scoring. - **0** — None identified. - **5** — 1–2 windows identified, or windows that are real but weakly connected to why Core would be in motion at that moment. - **10** — 3 specific, named windows (a cultural event, a predictable news cycle, a seasonal moment) with a clear causal link to Core being already activated. "Sundance" and "awards season" are real windows. "When people are feeling nostalgic" is not. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ### Q10 — Can you hold the project until the right window? - **0** — No. Contractual obligations, financial pressure, or expiring rights force an earlier release. - **5** — Uncertain. Some flexibility but significant pressure. - **10** — Full control of timing. Release date is a creative and strategic decision, not a contractual one. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ## Section 5: Theatrical Viability (Context-Dependent) ### Q11 — 5–10 Core density cities identified? Name them before scoring. - **0** — Cannot name a single city with plausible Core concentration. - **5** — 1–4 cities identified, or cities named without evidence of Core density. - **10** — 5–10 specific cities where Core concentration is provably high enough to expect >65% Week 1 capacity across a small number of screens. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ### Q12 — Does it benefit from communal viewing? - **0** — Private viewing is preferable. The subject matter is intimate, the tension is personal, or audience reaction diminishes rather than amplifies the experience. - **5** — Neutral. Works equally well in theatrical or private contexts. - **10** — Communal viewing amplifies the tension. Audience reaction (laughter, fear, shock) is part of the experience. Watching it in public together is itself a social signal. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ## Section 6: Resources & Constraints (Reality Check) ### Q13 — P&A budget allows targeted spend? - **0** — No P&A budget, or budget structure forces a broad-reach campaign incompatible with Core targeting. - **5** — Some budget, but targeting precision may need to be compromised. - **10** — Budget is sufficient to seed Core specifically (platform-targeted content, community seeding, partnerships in Core congregation points) and track engagement quality rather than reach. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ### Q14 — Can you cost-effectively acquire Core? - **0** — Core is geographically dispersed, platform-agnostic, or prohibitively expensive to reach with available budget. - **5** — Core is reachable but at significant cost per viewer. - **10** — Core congregates in low-cost, high-engagement channels where seeding is cheap and organic amplification is structurally likely. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ## Section 7: Risk Tolerance (Self-Assessment) ### Q15 — Can you accept alienating 80%? - **0** — Investors, distributors, or partners require broad audience appeal. A Core-first strategy is not contractually or financially viable. - **5** — Uncomfortable but tolerable. Stakeholders are not fully aligned on the Core-first model but have not explicitly blocked it. - **10** — Fully committed. Everyone involved understands and accepts that this project is not for everyone, and that is the strategy. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ### Q16 — Can you pivot quickly? - **0** — Long lead times, locked marketing commitments, or an irreversible release plan prevent any response to early signals. - **5** — Some flexibility in Week 2 and beyond. - **10** — Can read Week 1 signals (screen capacity %, social share rate, organic mentions) and execute a pivot within days: expand screens or accelerate digital without significant cost or contractual friction. Score: [ ] / 10 --- ## Total and Verdict | Section | Questions | Max | Score | |---------|-----------|-----|-------| | 1: Tension Identification | Q1–Q3 | 30 | | | 2: Audience Definition | Q4–Q6 | 30 | | | 3: Shareability Design | Q7–Q8 | 20 | | | 4: Timing & Change Windows | Q9–Q10 | 20 | | | 5: Theatrical Viability | Q11–Q12 | 20 | | | 6: Resources & Constraints | Q13–Q14 | 20 | | | 7: Risk Tolerance | Q15–Q16 | 20 | | | **Total** | | **160** | | - **130–160 — Strong Fit.** Proceed with tension-aware distribution planning. - **100–129 — Workable with Adjustments.** Identify the weakest sections and make specific fixes before committing to a distribution plan. - **Below 100 — Framework Mismatch.** The project may need fundamental reframing, a different distribution model, or more development before a tension-aware strategy is viable. --- ## Notes _Qualitative observations, gaps requiring attention, next steps._