Cinema advertising goes beyond the screen, but not year-round

Once you walk into a movie hall, you expect brands to take over the screen before the film begins.

But lately, something else has been showing up on that advertising real estate: the people who actually decide where brands spend their advertising money.

In one such spot running across PVR INOX theatres, Monaz Todywalla, CEO, PHD India, makes the case for cinema, explaining why the medium delivers 2X the attention of other video platforms.

She isn’t alone.

Anita Kotwani, Chief Client Officer, Dentsu South Asia, has also appeared on the big screen talking about cinema’s emotional and cultural pull, its role in shaping stories and building brands.

And Navin Khemka, CEO – South Asia, EssenceMediaCom, recently spoke in a LinkedIn post about a study finding cinema to be 2.5X more impactful than online platforms when it comes to grabbing attention.

In other words, the people who buy advertising space for brands are now occupying that very advertising space to make a case for cinema.

Three senior media agency leaders are all making the same broad plea: don't overlook the big screen.

It raises an obvious question: if cinema is having such a strong advertising moment, why doesn't it necessarily look like one from the numbers?

The answer depends on what exactly is being measured.

Cinema operators are reporting better advertising demand, particularly around major releases. Media agencies say the medium remains a small part of overall AdEx. And increasingly, exhibitors are selling advertisers something that goes well beyond the traditional pre-film spot.

That makes the cinema advertising story less about a sudden boom and more about a medium trying to redefine its value.

The blockbuster problem

Start with the film...Cinema advertising has always had a natural dependency on what people are willing to pay to watch. That relationship hasn't disappeared. PVR INOX CEO – Revenue & Operations Gautam Dutta said the company is seeing good momentum this year, helped by the film calendar and audience interest around major releases. “We see the strongest demand around major releases, when audience interest is at its peak. Regular periods continue to have steady demand, particularly from brands looking to build consistent visibility across cities and audiences,” he said.

That qualification is important. The advertising market may be healthier around big films, but that does not necessarily mean the medium has become consistently stronger across the calendar. 

At Miraj Entertainment, Executive Director Deepak Adwani sees a similar pattern. He said cinema advertising revenue is tracking 9–10% higher year-on-year, but the gap between major releases and regular weeks remains significant. “During tentpole weeks, on-screen inventory utilisation goes above 90 per cent, while in regular weeks it sits closer to 70 to 75 per cent,” said Adwani.

So while the industry is keen to argue that cinema is not simply a blockbuster medium, the commercial data being shared by exhibitors still shows a clear difference between tentpole and non-tentpole periods. 

Dhirender Suri, Senior Vice President, Head Cinema, Media Solutions, WPP Media India, pushed back against the idea that advertisers only buy blockbusters. “Advertising in cinemas is no longer based only on box office hits. Though blockbusters remain important from an advertiser perspective and attract concentrated advertiser demand - there is significant viewership which occurs during non-blockbuster weeks,” he said. Suri estimated that around 40% of total cinema footfalls happen during non-blockbuster films.

The distinction, then, is not that blockbusters no longer matter. They clearly do. It is that the industry is trying to persuade advertisers to look beyond them. Amol Mohandas, Founder & Principal Advisor, Weave Through, called this “content-context dependency” rather than simply blockbuster dependency. “Advertisers are becoming more selective about films, audiences, languages, genres and markets rather than buying cinema indiscriminately,” he added.

His formulation is revealing because it shifts the question from whether cinema works at all to which cinema is worth buying. “Which cinema audience and which content environment are we buying?” he asked. “Is now more important than ‘Are we buying cinema?’”

The growth is real. So is the small base.

There is another uncomfortable number for anyone describing cinema as the next big advertising opportunity.

Cinema advertising remains a very small component of India's total advertising market. Amol said cinema remains at around 0.8% of total AdEx and points to growth from approximately ₹851 crore in 2024 to ₹877 crore in 2025, which he describes as only around 3% growth.

Suri puts cinema at around 0.8–1% of total AdEx and said the medium has been growing at around 10% or more year-on-year.

The different estimates aside, neither changes the broader picture: cinema is growing within a relatively small advertising pool.

And that makes the attention argument more complicated. Cinema may deliver a highly controlled viewing environment, but advertisers have many more ways of buying video, reaching audiences and measuring outcomes than they did when cinema competed primarily with television.

Mohandas puts the distinction clearly. “Cinema’s strongest proposition is attention, not incremental reach,” he said.

That is also its limitation. “Attention cannot substitute for reach. I see cinema working best as a high-impact layer within a broader video, OOH or digital plan rather than as a standalone reach medium,” he added.

The 30-second spot is getting squeezed from both sides

The cinema ad pitch is increasingly moving beyond the screen. Dutta said brands are moving beyond conventional screen advertising. “Brands today are looking beyond just a 30-second spot before the film. They want to be part of the overall cinema experience.” At PVR INOX, that means lobby branding, digital screens, sampling, interactive installations and other on-ground formats.

Miraj is seeing the same shift. “Brands are asking for packages that cover the full visit: on-screen ads, lobby branding, digital displays, F&B tie-ups, and, in some cases, our app and website as well,” said Adwani.

There is a commercial reason for this expansion. Adwani said average deal sizes have risen 10–12%, with more brands buying bundled packages rather than standalone spots.

The question is whether that represents an increase in cinema advertising or simply a larger basket being sold under the cinema advertising umbrella. That distinction becomes increasingly relevant as exhibitors monetise more of the consumer journey.

So, cinema is no longer enough?

“Cinema today is much more than the film itself,” said Dutta. “The movie remains at the heart of the business, but there are several opportunities around the experience.” PVR INOX is pursuing F&B, live sports screenings, concerts, private shows, corporate events and catering alongside its core theatrical business.

Miraj's revenue mix tells a similar story. Adwani siad F&B contributes around 28–30% of revenue, advertising around 10–12%, and newer businesses around 5–6%.

This diversification is not just a cinema-operator story. It changes the advertising proposition too. If a brand can buy the screen, lobby, digital displays, sampling, F&B, app and website as one package, the advertiser is no longer buying only access to an audience watching a film.

It is buying access to the property. Suri said cinema has more than 32 sub-touchpoints across that journey, although he still ranks on-screen advertising as the most effective, followed by in-lobby advertising and other touchpoints. Mohandas similarly argues, “The screen remains the hero asset, but the theatre itself is becoming increasingly important.”

But that raises a question the industry's pitch doesn't entirely answer: if the screen remains the hero, why does the proposition increasingly need everything around the screen to make the sale?

Perhaps because the screen alone has a harder job competing for budgets. The economics are changing, but not necessarily in the way advertisers once expected! The pricing conversation is shifting as well. Adwani said demand around tent poles pushes up both rates and volumes, while average deal sizes have increased as bundled packages become more common.

Suri argued that blockbuster campaigns have become more expensive as advertiser demand concentrates around major releases, while larger audiences can also improve effective cost per reach. He also pointed to the emergence of pay-per-contact and pay-per-ticket-sold models, linking the commercial transaction more closely to actual attendance.

Mohandas, however, doesn't see the market as undergoing a broad rate correction. “I would not characterise the market as a broad-based rate correction,” he said. “The softer advertising periods have been more about demand and the quality of the film slate than exhibitors simply cutting yields.”

For him, the more important change is what advertisers are asking exhibitors and agencies to prove. “Advertisers are asking more about actual footfalls, audience quality and cost per impact,” he said.

“So the discussion is moving from ‘What is the spot rate?’ to ‘What audience and quality of attention am I actually buying?’”

That is potentially more significant than whether cinema rates move up or down. Because the medium's challenge is not simply pricing. It is proving why an advertiser should allocate scarce video and brand-building budgets to a medium whose total share remains below 1%.

Cinema’s ad story is more complicated than it looks

There are clearly signs of movement. Advertisers are buying more bundled packages. Major releases can push inventory utilisation above 90%. Average deal sizes at Miraj are up 10–12%. Operators are expanding the proposition into lobbies, F&B, sampling, digital screens and other experiences.

But there are also reasons not to mistake that for a broad-based advertising boom. Regular-week utilisation can still sit materially below tentpole levels. Cinema's share of AdEx remains around 0.8-1%. And even media executives making the strongest case for cinema acknowledge that it cannot replace the reach offered by digital and CTV.

What may actually be changing is the unit of sale. Cinema used to be relatively easy to define: a film, a screen, a commercial break and a captive audience. Now the proposition is becoming a package of screen time, audience context, physical presence, premium formats, F&B, sampling, digital touchpoints and film-led experiences. That makes cinema more interesting to advertisers. It also makes the category harder to measure.

If advertising revenue grows because a brand buys more of the theatre, that is unquestionably more monetisation for the exhibitor. But for the advertising industry, the harder question is whether it represents incremental value from cinema or simply a broader definition of what cinema advertising is.

Mohandas describes cinema as going through “a reset rather than a decline”.

That may be the real story here. Cinema has not suddenly become a mass-reach challenger to digital, nor has the film slate stopped determining where advertiser demand peaks. What has changed is how much of the theatre the industry is willing to put up for sale.

The screen. The lobby. The F&B counter. The sampling zone. The app. The film integration.

The pitch keeps getting bigger, even as cinema’s share of AdEx remains small.

The question now is not how much more cinema can sell. It is how much more advertisers believe the experience is worth.