Ah, this could be a tricky question.
If a sucky film is profitable then is it really sucky?
For example:
Bigfoot - $40k
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0834897/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1a
vs.
Yeti: A Love Story - $0.2k
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765488/?ref_=sr_1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0wbdyGGsIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AHLjjZbIKw
Two wildly different production costs (estimated), but who's to say
Troma Entertainment paid more for the distribution rights for Bigfoot than they did for Yeti: A Love Story
JUST BECAUSE THE FORMER COST MORE THAN THE LATTER TO MAKE?!
Five bucks says they both got paid nearly the same for the distribution rights, but 'Bigfoot' would likely be a financial loss for its production company while 'Yeti: A Gay Love Story' was likely profitable for it's prod co.
Now, let's consider audience appreciation.
Bigfoot - Published on Aug 12, 2012 - 39,157 views, 134 likes - 22 dislikes = 6:1 ratio
Yeti : A Gay Love Story - Published on Jul 20, 2012 - 66,369 views, 498 likes - 68 dislikes = 7.3:1 ratio
Next bad film: Pot Zombies -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0466392/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRUm0ZBl868
$1k prod budget, isn't even feature length movie long.
It sucks, and it's not even a movie. But it got distribution and people are watching it. Sort of. Barely. Does that count?
From a production company POV, pick your poison: biggest loser by absolute number or by negative ROI?
All that clarified, for me it's a toss up between the production values of either the non-movie 'Pot Zombies' and the feature length film 'Yeti: A Gay Love Story.'
They both fail on different levels.