‘Can Brands Afford to Let the Independent Sector Disappear?’

Last week the debate around in-house production reignited as the Independent World Producers Alliance shared a pointed open letter to advertisers.

In it they defended the value of independent production and raised concerns about advertising agencies’ in-house production units which, in the age of holding company consolidation, have become more influential. The letter argues that the current model lacks transparency and fair competition, undermining advertisers’ ability to access the best talent and craft.

Inevitably the letter has inspired plenty of response, both in support and opposition. While some argue that in-house, independent and hybrid models can – and must – coexist to meet the evolving demands of modern marketing, others can see conflicts of interest that blur decision-making, constrain competition, and deprioritise craft.

As agencies, production companies and clients navigate an expanding and fragmenting content landscape, it’s no longer just about the establishment of a new structure but about maintaining trust.

Here, we caught up with different parties across the industry to gauge their reaction, from independent production companies, in-house production and associations to find out what they make of it and how they see the production landscape evolving. Is there space for independent, in-house, and hybrid models to coexist? And do they think open bidding could genuinely democratise the industry, and is it realistic at scale?

Kelly Bayett, managing director at Love Song

I think there is a space for independent and in-house models but I don’t understand what a hybrid model is. Everything I have been pitched as a hybrid model is not beneficial to independent companies. It is either in-house going above the production company to the director and trying to reel them in OR giving them a co-production credit without actually doing the work, which is ideal for them because in award shows, they can enter them as the production company and win ‘Company of the Year’ awards they can flex to clients about how strong their in-house production is with work they didn’t do, and directors they don’t manage or represent.

None of those options sound particularly appealing to me.

It’s a tricky time. You have to be all over everything – how things are credited and who else is being credited is now something we put in our legal agreements. There is a huge issue with perception and that is not an accident. My biggest issue is and has always been with transparency. What do your clients actually know about how things get billed? Do your partners know they are bidding against in-house? Do they know it is made almost impossible to work out-of-house for some post aspects of a job? Do they know that the holding company in-house MUST get a piece of each job? Because that has been made clear to us. Is it clear to your clients? Are they seeing three reels and three transparent bids; and they believe that your in-house is the best option?

I am always into new ideas and ways to bring fairness into the equation. How can an agency act transparently with their client when there are quotas and mandates to hit for in-house? It isn’t clear. Do you give a third party, like a cost consultant blind bids with treatments? Do the cost consultants understand production and how budgets relate to each director's idea? It’s never apples to apples, of course, so everyone has to make an informed decision based on the creative execution of the director.

Scale isn’t the problem, you can create a system for anything. I think a conflict of interest is the problem. If you are creating for the money, you are doing it for the wrong reason. Yes, we are a business and we need to make money, but if you focus on the creative, the talent and the craft, the money always comes. I have built an entire career out of that theory. Never take the shortcut, never ignore the details. Anyone can do 80% of the work, but it’s that 20% that is special; that’s what your audience feels and that’s what the independent companies specialise in. If you are a client, agency, production company or post company, making the right choices with the right partners is what defines a career and the longevity of it.

James Brook-Partridge, head of production, UK at WPP Production

‘It’s complicated’. Ken Burns, one of the great documentary filmmakers, has these words in a neon sign in the main edit suite at his production company in Walpole, New Hampshire. This issue is not as weighty as the usual Ken Burns subject matter, but it is more complex than it might at first appear, and a binary response, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ simply won’t cut it.

From my perspective, there is not a world that exists where we do not need a healthy, and competitive independent production sector. So, I agree with much of the letter by the Independent World Producers Alliance. But I think it does overlook the fact that a lot of the changes that are being driven are not being driven solely by the operating companies (OPCOs), but rather by the needs of clients, given the challenges being surfaced by the evolving marketing ecosystem.

You only have to look at the way some clients are setting up pitches these days, with media and production becoming linked together, and separated from creative, to see that clients are asking for new solutions to how we deliver content.

That being said, I’m 100% of the belief that there is space for both a strong independent sector, and a strong in-house sector, be that within OPCOs or within client operations themselves. In-housing is not, by any means, the preserve of the OPCOs which does seem to get forgotten.

The key to all this is transparency. My teams have always striven to be transparent and have often declined to be involved when we have felt compromised in this regard. I, therefore, welcome all conversations or suggestions as to how we do this. Open bidding is something we have never resisted.

Finally, I think it is also worth noting that ALL the clients we deal with have alignments to the very best production consultants in the business, who are there to advise and counsel them on what may or may not be the right production solution for them. The notion that they are prey walking a dangerous path on a predator-soaked OPCO production savannah is somewhat fanciful.

Matt Miller, president & CEO at AICP

There is a simple premise to the letter, but a very important undercurrent as well.
The simple premise is that as industry relationships and roles between the parties (marketers/agencies/production/post entities) evolve, marketers must pay greater attention to managing how projects are created to make sure their own best interests are at the centre of who is engaged and how they are engaged.

The undercurrent is a bit more telling of the state of the industry. When the producers of the world started a dialogue 20+ years ago at the annual World Producers Summit in Cannes, it was remarkable how differently various markets engaged with advertisers and agencies on their behalf – sharing this intelligence was interesting. Fast forward to the massive consolidation within holding companies and the subsequent homogenisation of the businesses they have acquired and business practices they have implemented – in general, but here specifically in the role as agent in production. As we see holding companies growing their in-house production and post operations into massive factories with significant overhead, they are driven to make these divisions profitable.

Story after story of tactics practiced to steer work from the independent marketplace and keep it 'in-house' under the holding company umbrella are now as common and global as the holding companies themselves. It is clear that some of the practices are of paramount importance to the holding companies — whether or not it is in the best interest of the project or the marketer.

Similar stories from around the world have been shared within the Associations making up the Alliance; sharing this intelligence is enlightening.

This letter is a wake up call for marketers that rely on agencies to manage their productions. It has never been more important to truly know if their agents are able to do so when their own business interests factor into decision making.
If marketers want a creative, competitive and talent-diverse ecosystem to serve them, they must take an active role in preserving it.

Simon Cooper, co-owner at Academy Films

There would be room for different models to co-exist if the networks weren’t hell bent on putting independents out of business and doing all of the work themselves. The question to be asked is what is the motivation for different models when the three way pitch between independent providers, that compete creatively and financially to deliver the best results for brands, works perfectly well as it is.

And the unavoidable answer is that ultimately, the other models benefit the networks. Not their clients. Not the work. Not the development of young talent who are nurtured and invested in by independent production companies. Unfettered creative collaboration is the key to great work. ‘Is there room for us all to co-exist?’ is the wrong question. ‘Can brands afford to let the independent sector disappear?’ is a better one.

Steve Davies, chair executive at APA

This question has echoes of [American singer] Timmy Thomas — ‘why can't we live together?’ It's a lovely sentiment, but not always how the world works.
We aren’t suggesting that advertisers should reject an agency in-house proposal in every circumstance. If a brand needs to turn around a quick special offer that afternoon, tapping an agency's in-house team or doing it internally makes perfect sense. Speed and convenience have their place.

But beyond those scenarios, the independent production sector — spanning production, post and editing — operates in an intensely competitive environment, and that competition is precisely what drives quality and value. When production companies are pitching against each other on expertise and price, brands win. That's the open market working as it should.

The problem arises when agencies steer production work towards themselves. Whatever the justification offered, that dynamic distorts the market — and a distorted market rarely serves the person paying the bill. In this case, that's the advertiser.
This isn't about ideology. It's about transparency and accountability. It's the advertiser's money, and they should be empowered to spend it wisely. All we're asking is that brands pause and ask a simple question whenever an agency proposes to handle production in-house: ‘Why is this genuinely better for us than letting production companies compete openly for the work?’

Stuart St. Vincent Welch, sound designer/mixer at Barking Owl

Independent vendors uniquely benefit our industry because these partners consistently strive to hire top talent and foster environments welcoming to both agencies and directors. In my view, this combination of independence, true collaboration, and in-person sessions remains the most effective way to achieve exceptional creative outcomes. The independent perspective is invaluable.

There is a genuine belief within these teams that work should not only meet expectations but exceed them. Healthy competition between vendors fuels this ambition, raising the bar and sharpening ideas. These aren't just production spaces; they are creative environments designed for focus. Workshopping ideas outside the agency setting removes internal distractions, allowing for more honest feedback and faster decision-making. As agency models evolve, there is a renewed need for these types of spaces. Stepping outside the agency environment allows teams to think more clearly and collaborate more openly. There is significant value in bringing agency partners, directors, and creatives together under one roof to encourage both productivity and genuine human connection.

Elijah Torn, creative director at Barking Owl

Music seems to be the last holdout in mandated creative decisions at the agencies. That doesn’t mean a full in-house music service is infeasible but agencies already benefit from talented in-house music departments sourcing from a myriad of talented independent composers, producers and music supervisors.

In many ways, we’ve been wading in that pool for the past 20 or so years and my hope is that the rest of our talented industry can glean some resonance from it. The financial benefits are huge and clear when clients trust their agency producers to collaborate closely with independent creatives, offering clients a cost-effective choice in creative partners to achieve the best output.

I also think it’s extremely important to allow agencies the creative freedom to work with independent vendors that have the freedom to explore their talent, to thrive and compete and innovate outside the walls to bring life to ideas that creative teams dream up that are bigger than brands could imagine.

Toby Codrington, global brand president at Tag

The production landscape is becoming more flexible, not more divided. In-house teams, independent partners and hybrid models all have a role, and at scale, the strongest brands are using a mix of all three. In-house brings speed and brand proximity, independents bring specialist craft and external perspective, and hybrid models allow brands to flex without locking themselves into a single way of working.
What matters now is how these models are connected. When production becomes closed or opaque, scale breaks down and decision-making slows. Open bidding can widen access and improve choice, but only when it is structured, transparent and supported by the right systems. In practice, brands with connected production models consistently see fewer delays, clearer cost comparisons and shorter turnaround times, delivering tangible benefits across complex, multi-market programmes.

At Tag, our focus is not on owning the workflow, but on enabling it. That means embracing technology solutions that connect partners, support fair comparison and adapt as production models evolve. Pro-technology, but not proprietary. Pro-scale, but with safeguards. This approach gives brands the freedom to evolve their production model over time without compromising speed, quality or transparency.

Tracey Cooper, global managing partner at Riff Raff Films

It feels like we are currently in the middle of one huge land grab. It's messy, inglorious and I am not sure who will emerge as the winner. Maybe there won't be one. Maybe we will all descend into one great big central pool of creative banality. It may be naive of me but I don't think open bidding will democratise the industry; to my mind the current system – bidding on the open market with full and fair process – already seems pretty democratic.

I do question when we are told 'for full transparency, there is an internal bidder' whether the meaning of transparency has changed in the past few years and no one told me.

Simply telling me there is an internal option is not full transparency, it's merely disclosure.

The entire business model of the independent production company is to nurture directors, curate output and to bring creativity and fiscal responsibility to the process, with the hope that everyone, from director, to agency, to client, ends up with a product worthy of the time, talent and money that was put into it. Independent production and in-house production are not incentivised by the same thing. The output will be the poorer for it.

Michael Duttenhoefer, managing partner at Tony Petersen film GmbH

There is space to co-exist, but it is in the client’s interest to define exactly which model is best for which part of the production. The problem these days is that in the markets where in-house production is much more advanced already, the aim of network agencies is to completely substitute and replace the independents. And that is neither healthy, nor sustainable for the industry – and definitely from my point of view, not in the interest of brands in the long run.

I think the whole pricing system in our industry needs to be rethought urgently. I would say bidding is the second step, but first, we need to adapt the creative approach of finding the right talent fit for the task. In terms of talent and expertise, that’s where I see independent productions leading. In my experience, when it comes to financials, value for money is higher in an openly competitive market, not in a closed system focused on profit margins.

Jon Purton, CEO at Electric Theatre Collective

It’s hard to say whether there's space for happy coexistence as much of that comes down to the various ambitions of all the players in the game. There’s certainly not much trust. As best as I can follow the data, the video production end of the advertising market is a $100+ billion market that continues to grow YOY, with the overall advertising market well over a trillion dollars. That feels like space.

But the independent sector, by its nature, isn't governed by Wall Street or the London Stock Exchange – so there’s a misalignment of motivations at play. If you then combine misinterpretations and misinformation surrounding technology, which add paraffin to the flames of the age-old cost vs speed vs quality dynamic, then the in-housing strategy feels like it’s understandable. In-housing may well be better for some projects.

The bone I – and many – have to pick is merely one of fairness, which I think this letter seeks to address. The market is tough and things can often feel like a fistfight. We just ask that one hand isn’t tied behind our back.

Be transparent, be fair, be clean. Enough with arbitrary quotas, clandestine bidding practices and anything that tilts the playing field. Otherwise it's an admission of inferiority against the external production partners. Let the thoroughbreds run, and let the best creative partner for the brand win.

Lee Greenberg, president of the ACCP

There has been a significant decline in the volume of local production work. This is concerning to us. We’re worried it’s leading to an over-reliance on service work, which is precarious. If our dollar were to rise, for example, a lot of that service work would disappear.

Independent production operates as an ecosystem, and the ecosystem here in Canada and the Greater Toronto Area specifically is robust. That includes suppliers, crew, casting and creative. The more work goes in-house, the more that infrastructure is eroded.

But the biggest consequence is on advertisers. When their work goes in-house, they are often no longer exposing projects to open competition. This reduces visibility into pricing and decision making and limits access to the best creative and production talent. Open, competitive bidding leads to stronger creative outcomes and better value for brands. It’s in their best interest to preserve a competitive landscape.

Our members are seeing more projects that never go out to the independent market.
There are more in-house teams being included in bids they help shape or control.
We’re seeing more selective transparency around who is involved in production.

Our message to the marketplace is that a healthy, robust independent production community is good for everyone, including agencies. It nurtures a creative ecosystem that drifts into film and television, supports thousands of jobs and injects hundreds of millions of dollars into the communities where we operate. But most of all, it’s good for the companies and brands that generate the work. Transparency and competition benefit them the most because both factors drive the lowest price and best creative.

Jillian Gibbs, founder & CEO of APR

We have been talking about this for several years. I believe our job is to do everything we can to help our clients access the best directorial talent.

We have always championed a truly competitive bid process because it helps to achieve optimal results and maintains the premium of the craft. And, yes – there is space for several models to coexist. We encourage marketers to introduce the appropriate governance around each production model based on their needs related to craft, creator/influencers and the content engine.

Karim Bartoletti, partner and executive producer at Indiana Production

The production industry isn’t experiencing one wave we can ride – it’s being hit by multiple tsunamis simultaneously. Hierarchies have flattened. The market has democratised. Money is tighter. Competencies that once clearly defined roles, with agencies as strategic consultants and production companies as creative talent partners, have become blurred. Agencies are restructuring to reclaim strategic authority. Production companies are trying to figure out what they are and what they want to be in a world where all work flows have become valid: clients can reach talent directly, directors have loosened up their global agreements to get a piece of any action anywhere and of any kind. And let’s not forget that we live in a world in which the distinction between a big name and an emerging voice has nearly dissolved, we live in a world of ‘de-hierarchisations’.

And all of this is happening at the same time: the business in revolution right now.
In this revolutionary turmoil – let’s not call it chaos yet – independent production companies have a distinct role and value. We understand clients because our survival depends on their success, not on internal margin extraction. We understand production efficiency because we can’t afford waste. We understand how talent works, how to match the right creative mind to the right brief, and nurture it to maximise the work. But most importantly: we have no conflicting incentive. We are not trying to protect agency revenue. We are not trying to justify internal overhead. Our DNA is to do the best work possible, period.

Independent producers are not suppliers. We are creative assets. We don’t just execute a brief – we elevate it. The talent we bring to a project, the directors, the craft, the creative choices made on set and in post, these are not logistical decisions. They are creative ones, and they directly impact the quality and effectiveness of the final work. When we produce, we make the creative better. That is our core value, and it is something that is lost when production is treated purely as a cost centre or a line item to be optimised.

Yes, we can do things faster, cheaper, and easier when that serves the work. But we won’t optimise for speed or cost at the expense of quality. Independent producers will always ask: what does this project actually need? What talent, what approach, what creative rigour will make this work genuinely good?

The production landscape is already plural, and I think that’s healthy but only if the rules of engagement are honest. Independent, in-house, and hybrid models can absolutely coexist, provided clients understand what they’re actually buying from each. In-house production offers speed, cost efficiency, and brand consistency. Independent production offers creative independence, talent development, and a singular focus on the client’s outcome rather than the agency’s margin. Hybrid models can bridge both worlds when structured transparently. The problem arises when these models compete on the same terms without acknowledging their structural differences – particularly the conflict of interest that exists when an agency-owned production company bids against an independent one. That’s not a level playing field, and pretending it is doesn’t serve the client.

On open bidding: the intention is democratic, and in principle I might even support it. But at scale, it only works if the process is genuinely blind to ownership structures and that is close to impossible. A bid should be evaluated on creative vision, talent, and delivery – not on whether production lives inside the same holding company as the agency writing the brief. Where markets have established clear boundaries between these worlds – as Italy has since 2021, we have seen that the client relationship becomes more honest, less political and about the effectiveness of creative production.

The future isn’t about one model winning. It’s about clients becoming sophisticated enough to know which model serves which need – and producers being confident enough to say clearly what they stand for.

Scott Knox, president and CEO of the Institute of Canadian Agencies

This sounds awfully familiar. External partners complaining about in-housing is a debate the agency sector has been having with its clients for years. My advice: enough with the hand-wringing – get on with building the business case for your impact. Align your argument with effectiveness data. Without it, you're just moaning.

The letter asserts that independent production delivers better outcomes but offers no evidence to back it up. That's the same gap agencies have had to close, and it's precisely why the ICA and the Canadian agency sector are the first in the world to build a database of the client/agency relationship elements that do – and don't – impact marketing effectiveness.

I applaud the organisations behind this letter for standing up for their members, and I'd urge those members to invest in their representatives to build the same kind of effectiveness evidence. At a minimum, work with your clients, whether that’s via external agencies or in-house teams, to get the production partner listed on awards entries. Better still, co-fund the entries so your work gets fair representation. The Effie Awards globally already provide for co-entry and supporting-business recognition on entry forms. Get involved. Prove your worth.

IPA’s response

The IPA does not recognise the portrayal of agency production set out in this open letter. It is inaccurate and it risks obscuring the real dynamics of a competitive, evolving market.

We have had this conversation repeatedly as an industry and it is disappointing to see the same claims continue to be presented without evidence and without acknowledgment of the facts. At a time when collaboration is more important than ever, it is reasonable to question the motivations behind assertions that risk dividing the ecosystem rather than strengthening it.

There is no place in our industry for opaque or improper bidding practices. We are confident that our member agencies operate with integrity and in the best interests of their clients, and we invite any specific concerns to be raised directly. Increased competition and market pressures are a reality across the production landscape, but competition should not be conflated with 'stifling'.

The characterisation of agencies as 'gatekeepers' fundamentally misunderstands the role of agency production teams. Agency producers are expert facilitators of complex creative and commercial processes. They bring structure, judgement and value at every stage, from initial scoping through to final delivery. Their role is to guide clients and partners, internal and external, towards the strongest outcomes, ensuring the right talent, ideas and production approaches are brought forward. At its best, this creates a highly effective three-way partnership between client, agency and the most appropriate production partners.

Equally, the suggestion that the development of agency production services is primarily driven by a desire to capture spend is a misreading of market change. The growth of agency production capabilities has been shaped by the expansion and fragmentation of media, particularly the surge in digital content needs that were not always well served by traditional models. Agencies have adapted to meet those needs with speed, flexibility and efficiency while continuing to collaborate extensively with external production partners.

The majority of high-budget, standalone TVC productions continue to be delivered through established, collaborative pitched models. At the same time, brands are making informed, pragmatic decisions about how best to deliver their marketing across an increasingly diverse range of outputs. This is a plural, competitive ecosystem and one that benefits clients.

The industry is evolving. The IPA remains committed to working constructively with all partners to ensure that evolution is collaborative, transparent and focused on delivering the best possible outcomes for brands.