P5 — MARKET Protocol
Commercial viability assessment for creative work.
Configuration
yaml
ROLES_ACTIVE:
PRIMARY: [PRODUCER]
SECONDARY: [FIRST-READER, CINEPHILE, DRAMATURGIST]
INACTIVE: [AESTHETE, NARRATOLOGIST, ART_HIST, RHETORICIAN, ACADEMIC]
DOCUMENTS:
GENERATE: [Coverage Report (market-focused), Market Positioning,
Comparable Titles Analysis, Production Feasibility]
EXCLUDE: [Beat Map, Structural Analysis, Character Atlas,
Thematic Architecture, Diagnostic Report,
Theoretical Correspondence, Revision Roadmap]
DEPTH: Medium (commercial focus)
INGESTION: Two reads (engagement + commercial lens)
Ingestion Protocol
Read 1: Audience Response
- •[FIRST-READER]: General audience appeal
- •Where does engagement hold for mainstream viewer?
Read 2: Commercial Lens
- •[PRODUCER]: Production considerations
- •[CINEPHILE]: Market positioning
Core Deliverables
1. Market Positioning Analysis (Required)
markdown
## Market Positioning ### Genre Classification **Primary**: [Genre] **Secondary**: [Subgenre/hybrid elements] **Tone**: [Descriptor] ### Target Audience | Quadrant | Fit | Notes | |----------|-----|-------| | Male <25 | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | Male 25+ | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | Female <25 | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | Female 25+ | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | ### Platform Fit | Platform | Fit | Rationale | |----------|-----|-----------| | Theatrical (Major) | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | Theatrical (Limited) | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | Streaming (Premium) | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | Streaming (General) | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | Cable/Network | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | ### Unique Selling Proposition [1-2 sentences: What makes this marketable?] ### Commercial Challenges [1-2 sentences: What makes this a tough sell?]
2. Comparable Titles Analysis (Required)
markdown
## Comparable Titles | Title | Year | Box Office/Viewership | Relevance | |-------|------|----------------------|-----------| | [X] | [Y] | [Z] | [Why comparable] | ### Lessons from Comparables **[Title 1]** succeeded because: [X] - This project shares: [Y] - This project differs: [Z] **[Title 2]** underperformed because: [X] - Risk for this project: [Y] - Mitigation: [Z]
3. Production Feasibility (Required)
markdown
## Production Feasibility ### Budget Tier Estimate | Tier | Range | Fit | Notes | |------|-------|-----|-------| | Micro (<$1M) | | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | Low ($1-10M) | | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | Mid ($10-50M) | | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | High ($50-100M) | | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | | Tentpole (>$100M) | | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | | ### Production Considerations | Element | Assessment | Impact | |---------|------------|--------| | Location requirements | [X] | $/Schedule | | VFX/SFX needs | [X] | $/Quality | | Period/futuristic elements | [X] | $/Quality | | Stunt/action complexity | [X] | $/Safety | | Cast size | [X] | $/Scheduling | ### Castability Assessment **Lead Roles**: | Role | Type | Castability | Notes | |------|------|-------------|-------| | [X] | [Archetype] | â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹â—‹ | [Star vehicle? Character role?] | **Attachable Elements**: - [ ] Star-vehicle lead role - [ ] Ensemble with multiple hooks - [ ] Director-driven material - [ ] High-concept premise (sells itself)
4. Go/No-Go Recommendation
markdown
## Commercial Recommendation **Verdict**: [ ] GREEN LIGHT [ ] DEVELOP FURTHER [ ] PASS ### Strengths (Commercial) 1. [X] 2. [X] ### Weaknesses (Commercial) 1. [X] 2. [X] ### Recommended Path [Specific next steps for commercial development]
Commercial Assessment Criteria
| Factor | Weight | Assessment Questions |
|---|---|---|
| Concept clarity | High | Can it be pitched in one sentence? |
| Genre viability | High | Is this genre performing currently? |
| Budget/scope alignment | High | Can it be made for appropriate budget? |
| Castability | Medium | Roles actors want to play? |
| Timeliness | Medium | Cultural moment alignment? |
| Franchise potential | Low-Medium | Sequel/universe possibilities? |