Why Horror is the "Most Cost-Effective" Entertainment in the World. The Economics of Horror #1

Production budget: $15,000. In Japanese yen, that's roughly 2 million yen. A movie was made for about the price of a compact car.

That movie went on to earn $193 million (approximately 28 billion yen) worldwide.
You likely know it. It's the 2009 release, "Paranormal Activity".

The initial shooting budget was indeed $15,000 (about 2 million yen). Even after DreamWorks took over additional filming and distribution, and including re-shoots and distribution costs, the production cost remained in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (tens of millions of yen). If you use only the shooting budget as the denominator, the return exceeds 10,000 times.

10,000 times. I did a double-take at first, too, wondering if I had miscounted the digits.

You might think that. I thought so too.

But horror has decades of track records for this kind of "miracle".

"The Blair Witch Project" turned $60,000 (about 8.7 million yen) into $249 million (about 36 billion yen; box office figures are based on Box Office Mojo data, same applies below).

The 1978 film "Halloween" turned $325,000 (about 47 million yen) into $70 million (about 10 billion yen). The 2004 film "Saw" turned $1.2 million (about 170 million yen) into $104 million (about 15 billion yen).

Going back even further to the 1960s, the legendary producer Roger Corman (Roger Corman is known as the "King of Low-Budget Movies" and the "Emperor of B-Movies"), who directed and produced numerous horror films, titled his autobiography as follows.

Why is it that only horror can keep this winning streak going for over 60 years?

To give you the simple answer first.

Horror is "a huge hit if it works, and no big loss if it doesn't." In other words, the budget and ROI (an indicator showing how much profit is generated relative to the cost invested) are asymmetric.
It is the genre where you can buy this "good deal" the cheapest. Horror allows you to acquire this skewed way of winning—betting small and winning big—more cheaply than any other genre. And there are four pillars that support this low cost.

Low production costs, a tolerant fandom, marketing driven for free by live-streaming culture, and the fact that one hit can become the starting point for a franchise. The moment these four elements align, it creates multipliers that simply never happen in other genres.

In this article, we will dissect the economic structure of horror in three parts. The first part looks at the global numbers. Let's get started.

A mountain of nothing but outliers

First, let me show you the numbers properly. If we don't go through this, everything that follows will sound like I'm "exaggerating".

According to research by the statistical analysis media StatSignificant, the average ROI (Return on Investment = how much you put in versus how much you got back) for horror is 173%. When you look at this by film genre, it stands out as an outlier floating alone in the upper left of the graph.

If you list the 50 most profitable films in cinema history, 16 of them are horror. That is the highest of any genre. Moreover, the average production cost for horror is only about one-fifth that of adventure or animated films. They are made cheaply and recover costs well. Rather than being a model student, they are the type of model student that exploits loopholes in the rules.

Furthermore, horror has a strange quirk that other genres do not have.

Critic scores and box office results almost never align.

The 2023 film 'Five Nights at Freddy's' struggled with a 33% score on Rotten Tomatoes (a service that collects reviews from film critics and media around the world and assigns a score to each work). It was branded as a 'failure' by critics. However, its CinemaScore (a market research firm that surveys general audiences who have seen a movie and gives it a 'grade' from A to F), which measures audience satisfaction, was an A-, and its global box office was $297 million (approximately 43 billion yen). Fans are not buying tickets by looking at critics' scorecards.

They are just coming to the theater because they want a 'scary experience'.

From an investment perspective, this is almost like cheating. The fact that customers come even if the quality of the work fluctuates means that the floor (lower limit) of the entire portfolio is high. The probability of everything being a 'dud' is structurally low.

When it comes to series, the numbers are in the realm of the abnormal. The total production cost for the 10 'Saw' films is approximately $117 million (about 17 billion yen), and the global box office is approximately $1.15 billion (about 167 billion yen). That is about 10 times the cost. The 'Conjuring' universe has grossed a total of approximately $2.7 billion (about 390 billion yen) across 9 films. It is the strongest horror franchise in history.

I don't want you to misunderstand here; it's not that these were hits because they were 'sequels to masterpieces.' Honestly, the reviews for the 'Saw' series after the middle installments aren't that high. Even so, customers still come. As long as there are fans seeking a terrifying experience, the series' revenue won't easily collapse.

And according to 2025 data ( Fortune ), domestic US horror box office revenue surpassed $1 billion (approximately 145 billion yen) in a single year at the fastest pace in history. It is also at an all-time high for a single year. 'The Conjuring: Last Rites' had a production budget of $55 million (about 8 billion yen) and grossed over $400 million worldwide (about 58 billion yen).

'The Sinners' cost $90 million (about 13 billion yen) and grossed $367 million (about 53 billion yen). Moreover, 'The Sinners' is an original work that does not rely on existing IP.

*By the way, 'The Sinners' is a movie I personally love very much and highly recommend.

Horror is currently in the middle of its golden age.

Blumhouse as a 'Mechanism'

There is someone who turned the structure Corman discovered 60 years ago into an 'industry' using data. Jason Blum. He is the founder of Blumhouse Productions.

The method is, in a word, incredibly simple.

That is all. That is truly the only core; everything else is just branches.

Let me talk about those branches, too. Actors are hired at SAG (Screen Actors Guild) minimum wage, and if the film is a hit, they are rewarded with backend compensation (deferred profit sharing). The same terms apply to the director. Locations are generally limited to one, and filming lasts 20 to 25 days. No CGI is used; instead, it is shot using shadows, sound, and practical on-set effects.

Instead of giving creators a 'budget constraint,' you give them 'complete creative freedom.'

It was because this framework existed that Jordan Peele was able to make his feature film debut with 'Get Out,' and M. Night Shyamalan was able to make a comeback with 'The Visit.'

In this way, they mass-produce over 10 films a year, and a single home run covers the cost of several strikeouts.

To me, this looks exactly like venture capital fund management. You invest in 10 companies, and even if 8 fail, if one hits it big, it pays for everything—that is the exact structure.

Let's look at the numbers.

First, here are the averages; you can see that horror is exceptionally cheap.

Let's look at individual works.
'Get Out' cost $4.5 million (approx. 650 million yen) and made $255 million (approx. 37 billion yen). About 57 times the return.

'Split' cost $9 million (approx. 1.3 billion yen) and made $278 million (approx. 40 billion yen). About 31 times the return.

'Five Nights at Freddy's' cost $20 million (approx. 2.9 billion yen) and made $297 million (approx. 43 billion yen), the highest-grossing film in Blumhouse history. In total, it has exceeded $5 billion worldwide (approx. 725 billion yen) (recent reports suggest it may be around $6 billion, or approx. 870 billion yen), and it is said to hold about half of the U.S. theatrical horror market.

Corman once said:

Blum translated this craftsman's intuition into a 'model that calculates backward from a budget cap.' The substance is the same.

The emotion of fear cannot be bought with money.
Because it cannot be bought, it can be made cheaply.
If it can be made cheaply, you can shoot many of them.
If you can shoot many, you only need one to hit.
It is a beautifully linked chain.

The entertainment analysis media The Story Moat writes: It wasn't that horror itself was the business. The 'asymmetry' between budget and ROI was the real core, and horror was simply the cheapest package to achieve that.

This way of putting it resonated with me the most. What is being projected on the theater screen is a horror movie, but what is moving on the spreadsheet is venture capital.

The same sound is ringing out outside of movies, too.

This asymmetry isn't just a story within movies.

In fact, the structure is often more extreme outside of movies.

There is an indie game developer named Scott Cawthon who works entirely on his own.

His previous work, 'Chipper & Sons Lumber Co.', was panned on Steam with comments like 'the characters look like creepy animatronics.' Normally, this would be enough to break someone's spirit.

Cawthon did the opposite. He made a game that featured those 'creepy animatronics' as the main characters.

In 2014, 'Five Nights at Freddy's' (FNaF) was released. He turned a criticized weakness into his main selling point.

When streamer Markiplier uploaded a gameplay video, his terrified reactions themselves became content.

The screaming, the sight of him falling out of his chair, and his stubborn refusal to quit while saying 'I can't do this anymore.' Viewers could laugh without buying the game, and once they saw it, they wanted to play it themselves. As a result, it went explosively viral. Cawthon released sequels in rapid succession that same year, releasing three games in less than a year and even setting a Guinness World Record for 'most game sequels released in one year.' From there, it was adapted into a film produced by Blumhouse, grossing $297 million worldwide (approximately 43 billion yen).

An indie game made by one person transformed into a global IP. And the starting point was a single title that turned harsh criticism to its advantage.

This isn't just good luck for FNaF. 'Phasmophobia' is a cooperative horror game from a small team that had sold 25 million copies as of July 2025, with estimated revenue exceeding $200 million (approximately 29 billion yen). 'Poppy Playtime' uses a chapter-based system where the first chapter costs only $2.99 (approximately 430 yen), and its total estimated revenue has exceeded $100 million (approximately 14.5 billion yen).

The same sound is ringing out in experiential entertainment as well.According to the National Retail Federation (NRF)the 2025 Halloween shopping season reached a record high of $13.1 billion (approximately 1.9 trillion yen). Costumes, decorations, candy, and event admission fees. This season, where fear generates consumption, is already one of the biggest revenue-generating periods of the year for the retail industry.

Universal's 'Halloween Horror Nights' is a separate ticketed night event, yet there are days when it is more crowded than during the day. It is said that Merlin Entertainments earns about one-fifth of its annual profit in October alone.

Movies. Games. Theme parks.

Even though the media are different, the path they are running on is the same.

Actually, this is also a story about my own line of work. I am someone who sits between a producer and a director working in entertainment, and on the night I was writing this article, I was lining up horror revenue by medium in a spreadsheet. Movies, games, theme parks, merchandise... I stopped when I hit the tenth column. I realized this is the exact structure of the work I do every day.

Find excellent and promising creators,
in exchange for letting them create freely,
launch projects with disciplined budgets,
capture initial momentum, spread it far, grab fans,
and expand horizontally (to other media).

It is exactly the same.

However, the initial investment for horror is on a different scale. Is there any other field where a global IP can be born from $15,000 (approx. 2 million yen)?

At the very least, I cannot think of one.

There are four pillars.

So, why is it that "only" horror has been able to maintain this structure for 60 years?

To break it down, it comes down to four reasons.

These serve as a direct yardstick for watching, making, and investing in horror.

The first pillar: The audience's imagination covers the production costs.

I will borrow the words of Roger Ebert.

Fear is maximized by "not showing." Since you don't show it, you don't need expensive CGI or large sets. The principle that Corman discovered in the 1960s and Blum industrialized in the 2020s boils down to this one point.The cost of creating fear has hardly risen in 60 years.It is one of the few commodities that can ignore inflation.

The second pillar: The fandom absorbs the fluctuations in quality.

Even if FNaF has a 33% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, it still makes $297 million (approx. 43 billion yen) in global box office revenue. Horror fans come for a "scary experience," so they don't open or close their wallets based on critics' scores. This is effective for a portfolio. Even if one title flops,the floor for the entire genre is high. "Customers come even if reviews are low" is a property that is almost like a cheat code in the world of investment.is.

The third pillar: Fans and streamers pay for the advertising costs.

In horror games, the "player's fearful reaction" becomes entertainment in itself, and streamers become massive, free advertising channels. The co-founder of Red Barrels (an indie game development studio based in Montreal, Canada) testified, "Our marketing budget was almost zero, but thanks to YouTubers, millions of people became aware of it."

It is the same for movies. "Terrifier 3" had a marketing budget of only $500,000 (approx. 73 million yen) and zero TV spots. Yet, it took the number one spot in the US. The distributor, Cineverse, uses a method of reaching fans directly through its own streaming service and the niche media outlet Bloody Disgusting. You don't have to scatter it to the masses; if you reach the fans, you can recover your costs.

The fourth pillar: One hit becomes the starting gun for a franchise.

If a first installment with a $5 million (approx. 700 million yen) budget is a hit, you can expand it horizontally into sequels, universes, games, and theme parks. The "Conjuring" universe has grossed approximately $2.7 billion (approx. 390 billion yen) across nine films.

And then there is Resident Evil. The total revenue, including 201 million cumulative game units sold, six films, a television series, theme park attractions, and even pachinko, is estimated at $13 billion (approx. 1.9 trillion yen).

It is 13 billion dollars (approximately 1.9 trillion yen).

The very first one was a PlayStation game in 1996. Compared to Marvel or Star Wars, the starting cost had two fewer zeros. From there, an IP worth 1.9 trillion yen has grown.

The reason horror franchises are so strong is that the emotion of fear has almost no language or cultural barriers. Darkness is scary. A sudden noise makes your body jump. This reaction requires no subtitles. It crosses borders in an instant.

As far as I know, horror is the only genre where these four pillars stand simultaneously.

However, there is a ceiling to this story.

After writing so enthusiastically, I am now going to flip the table on myself. This hypothesis has clear limitations.

First, looking at the market as a whole, the ceiling for the absolute amount of money that can be earned is low. The Numbers data shows that since 1995, horror has accounted for only about 6% of total box office revenue in the North American market. It ranks 6th among all genres. Even though the ROI (a metric showing how much profit is generated relative to the money invested) is outstanding, it is a niche when looking at the whole pie. It is difficult to become a blockbuster on the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars that major studios crave. While 2025's 'The Sinners' and 'The Conjuring: Last Rites' seem to have achieved exceptional results, it is not yet clear if this will become the norm.

Next. This is the most important point: the moment you increase the budget, the asymmetry disappears.

Director Ari Aster's 'Beau Is Afraid' cost 35 million dollars (about 5 billion yen) and had a global box office of about 12 million dollars (about 1.7 billion yen). While it is a wound that can be swallowed by the studio A24 as a whole, it is a devastating loss on its own.

Even within A24, 'Hereditary' (10 million dollars = about 1.5 billion yen → about 83 million dollars = about 12 billion yen) and 'Talk to Me' (4.5 million dollars = about 650 million yen → 92.2 million dollars = about 13 billion yen) achieved brilliant ROI on low-to-mid budgets.

Yet, the moment the budget is raised, horror is dragged onto the same playing field as other genres. The asymmetry only worked because it was 'cheap.' Like Cinderella's magic, when the bell of the budget rings, it returns to its original state.

And Blumhouse itself is not invincible. In 2024-2025, 'Wolf Man' failed to recoup its production costs, and 'M3GAN 2.0' performed significantly lower than its predecessor, leading to a period where The Hollywood Reporter reported on a string of box office misses, with 'M3GAN 2.0' being the final blow. Even as a portfolio machine, there are months where every shot misses.

In short, this hypothesis only holds true 'in a portfolio, on average, and at a low-to-mid budget.' The moment you bet big on a single title, the same risks as other genres attack with the same face.

Horror is not just 'cheap movies'.

It starts at a low cost,
fans absorb the variations in quality,
live streaming takes over the promotion,
and if it hits, it becomes the starting gun for a franchise.

These four pillars have been generating multipliers that cannot be replicated in other genres for 60 years. That is the true nature of the economic structure of horror.

Working in the entertainment industry, I am always thinking about the same thing.

How can I create works that lower the risk of failure, endure over time, continue to be loved by fans, and generate profit? Ultimately, if there is no profit, the work cannot continue. It is a chicken-and-egg situation.

The four pillars of horror seem to be one answer to that question.

It seems like there might be other things that meet these conditions besides horror, but for example, in web novels and digital manga, production costs are low, and there are many cases where they can be expanded horizontally if they become popular.

However, that is more of a discussion about the medium, whereas horror is a discussion about the genre. I don't know of any other genre besides horror that meets these conditions.

However, there is a ceiling, and it breaks the moment you get greedy and increase the budget. I wonder how much we can trust this hypothesis. Next time, as a continuation, I would like to verify the conditions for a horror hit from a producer's perspective. I will dissect it more deeply.

See you then.

*The second part has been published. Here you go ↓

In this note, I share information about entertainment, pop culture, and technology from a producer's perspective. If you are even slightly interested in these topics, please like and follow.

Membership 'Awakening Conference' is 980 yen per month, and you get unlimited access to two or more exclusive articles every week, as well as all past articles. It's much better value to read everything for the price of one lunch than to buy just one article. If you're interested, please take a look.