'Wait 150 days?' Holdback announcement looms, and consumers are furious

A proposed holdback period of 150 days is set to deepen an already contentious debate over the film industry's future. The holdback regime — which would bar a film from appearing on OTT platforms and other services for a set period after its theatrical release — was designed to stem the exodus of moviegoers from cinemas. But with production companies, distributors, OTT services and even the theater chains the policy was meant to protect all expressing reservations, the measure risks becoming a regulation that nobody wants.

Kim Young-su, first vice minister of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, said at a briefing at Government Complex Seoul earlier this month that "a consensus has formed on introducing holdback under certain conditions," adding that the government would announce results in August and continue refining the policy through further discussion.

With the announcement imminent, however, wide gaps remain among production, distribution, pay-TV and OTT sectors over how the regime should work. Critics have also noted that film consumers — the very people the policy affects most — have been excluded from the negotiating table. Even if the consultative body declares a voluntary holdback agreement, a rocky road ahead appears all but certain.

The consultative body spent roughly two months gathering industry views, with the goal of signing a voluntary "holdback agreement for the mutual benefit of Korean cinema" in August. It comprises 22 members: four officials from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the Korean Film Council, three from the production sector, five from distribution, three from theater chains, four from pay-TV (TVOD) and three from OTT services.

The body was formed to reach an internal, voluntary industry consensus on establishing a holdback regime, normalizing the revenue structure of Korean cinema, and building a mutually beneficial ecosystem between theaters and OTT platforms.

The figure under discussion is expected to be shorter than the six-month period proposed in a bill introduced by Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Lim O-kyung, which first ignited the debate. The Korea Fair Trade Commission had previously flagged the bill, saying that while it supported the goal of fostering healthy coexistence in the film industry, restricting OTT services for six months after a theatrical run raised serious concerns about limiting competition.

Whether the consultative body can produce an agreement that satisfies all parties remains an open question. Theater chains are the most vocal advocates for a stronger holdback, citing audience attrition and the need to protect the theatrical ecosystem. Production companies and distributors, by contrast, oppose the restriction, arguing that limiting distribution timing distorts the market and makes it harder to recoup investment. OTT services say a mandatory holdback would inevitably disrupt their ability to secure new releases.

The holdback period the government has proposed to the consultative body is 150 days, according to reporting compiled Thursday. If the government's proposal is adopted as is, a film would not be available on OTT or other platforms until roughly five months after its theatrical opening — a figure that production companies, distributors and OTT services find deeply unwelcome.

"The weaker a film performs at the box office, the more urgently it needs to recoup losses in ancillary markets so there is capacity to prepare the next project," an official at one investment and distribution company said. "There is no reason to keep a film that audiences are not watching locked to theaters. If investment recovery and reinvestment do not happen properly, a decline in content competitiveness is inevitable. If mutual benefit is the goal, the approach needs to be far more careful."

An industry official who asked not to be named was sharper in their assessment. "150 days is not meaningfully different from the original bill. It is the result of one side's voice being weighted too heavily," the official said, arguing that the holdback debate is moving in the opposite direction from where the film distribution market has actually been heading.

In practice, "Humint," released last year, and "Wild Thing," released this year, both became available on OTT platforms roughly two months after their theatrical openings. Neither performed as well as hoped at the box office, but the swift move to OTT helped offset their losses. "Colony," which drew 5.9 million admissions and was considered a box-office success, also launched its TVOD service roughly two months after opening.

In April, the Korean Film Council published a research report titled "Holdback Analysis for Maximizing Korean Film Revenue," which found that "the impact of holdback on theater audiences was not statistically significant" and that "adjusting holdback alone would be difficult to meaningfully increase theater audiences under current market conditions." The council suggested an optimal holdback range of 45 to 105 days, depending on the type of film.

The loudest objections are coming from consumers. With the very people who watch films shut out of the consultative body's discussions, critics say their freedom of choice is being curtailed without their input.

The Consumers' Rights Civic Council issued a statement Tuesday titled "Ticket prices, OTT restrictions and the holdback policy must be reconsidered," declaring its opposition to "a blanket six-month mandatory holdback" and calling for film industry measures and structural reforms that put consumer choice and welfare at the center. The group urged the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism to pursue consumer-centered policies rather than a six-month holdback, argued that restricting consumer choice was unjustifiable given the already heavy burden of ticket prices, and demanded an end to what it called backroom deal-making by the ministry and the Korean Film Council.

Also on Tuesday, Consumer Watch issued a commentary saying "holdback must not force consumers to wait," arguing that "the most sustainable way to save the industry is not to make consumers wait, but to create products and services that consumers will willingly choose." The group added that "the government should guarantee the autonomous choices of businesses and competition among platforms to the greatest extent possible, rather than turning holdback into a new distribution regulation."

There is also frustration with the way the consultative body was set up with a hard deadline of an August conclusion. Given that the regime's introduction is directly tied to the industry's competitiveness, critics say more thorough preliminary research and discussion are needed.

"The first question should be whether the uniform mandatory holdback the government is pursuing would actually help improve the content industry," one film industry official said. "Ultimately it is the audience who chooses what to watch, so measures and structural reforms that put consumer choice and welfare first must take priority."