Exclusivity is a relic of advertising’s past

By Luke Lashley

Wind the clock back to 2003–for those of you working in 2003. Imagine you are an ad creative chomping at the bit over an upcoming shoot two months away. But first things first: you need a director. You weren’t hopping on the World Wide Web to find your talent, not back then.

Social media didn’t exist; high-resolution video wasn’t easily streamed online; and platforms like Squarespace were years away. Your options for finding a director were limited, and you depended on production companies to do the legwork.

You would mark your office calendar–yes, that would be a paper calendar tacked to the wall–for the next day’s reel screening. A production company rep would arrive with a DVD of curated director reels. Over lunch, you would chat about the talent, watch the reels, and leave the meeting informed and inspired. Back then, exclusivity made sense. Production companies invested time and money in physical reels, scheduling screenings, and traveling to agencies. Signing directors to exclusive deals ensured a return on that investment.

But exclusivity was born out of scarcity:

• Production companies were scarce
• High-end directors were scarce
• Boards were scarce
• And the means to view director work were scarce

Fast forward to today, and advertising has changed dramatically…and not just the wall calendar part. Abundance has replaced scarcity: there are more production companies, more directors, more boards, and more ways to browse and share work. Directors can showcase their portfolios online with a free Instagram account and a $20 Squarespace subscription. Creatives can browse work seamlessly from their phones. Reels now appear instantly in an agency producer’s inbox minutes after a search begins.

Yet the industry clings to exclusivity, a relic of a bygone era. Operating from a place of exclusivity rather than abundance is shortchanging every stakeholder.

 Why Exclusivity No Longer Works

For directors, instead of managing how many boards they receive and reels they send on their own, they are tied to a single company with a finite number of potential job matches, reducing their opportunities to fit more projects. Exclusivity stifles growth and limits exposure in an industry where abundance could work in their favor.

For production companies, exclusivity forces reliance on a limited roster to pitch for every board that comes across their desk. There’s no way even a “large” roster can be a DNA match for the variety of creative asks they receive. Instead of offering the best fit for each project, they end up pushing their roster, aligned or not. Large rosters aren’t the solution to this problem; instead, production companies end up with some highly in-demand directors and many more directors down-roster who are locked into exclusive deals but not busy enough to make a solid living.

For agencies, this outdated model creates inefficiency. Reels often don’t match the creative ask, wasting time and energy. When agencies can’t find what they’re looking for, they’re left trying to make imperfect options work or choose based on production company cache alone.

And for clients—the ones paying for the process—the inefficiencies of exclusivity trickle down, leading to missed opportunities, mixed results, and wasted resources.

A Better Way Forward

Production companies, directors, agencies, and even clients should embrace a modern approach—one that moves away from exclusivity and cache and instead focuses on a single priority: DNA-matching between directors and creative projects. That approach is freelancing. Leaning into the benefits of freelance is what we’re doing at Departure. The outdated exclusivity model no longer serves anyone, and here’s how I want to do things:

For directors, we won’t promise to “invest in selling you” if you “join our roster” because we don’t have a roster. Production companies often justify exclusivity by claiming they need to “invest in you,” but let’s be honest—posting your work on social media isn’t an “investment” in your career.

Having conversations with reps and agency producers about why you’re a great director isn’t either. Even in-person screenings—while occasionally valuable—are ultimately an investment in the production company, not the director. If anything, signing exclusively with them and putting your portfolio on their site is you investing in the production company, not the other way around.

What we will do is submit you for boards that align with your creative DNA. If you’re a match, we’ll pitch you. If you’re not, we won’t waste your time. We believe directors should have the freedom to work with multiple companies, maximizing their exposure and opportunities for the perfect DNA matches.

For agency producers, our focus is on quality, not quantity. You’ll never receive a list of directors pushed at you because they’re part of a roster. Instead, we’ll send only directors who are true DNA matches for your creative ask. And we’re actively building systems to make this matching even more precise in the months ahead.

For clients, moving away from exclusivity to embrace freelance directors will give you better creative options and, ultimately, better work. Over time, this shift will help streamline the entire process—for your team, the agencies you hire, and the industry as a whole.

Leaving the Past Behind

Exclusivity only made sense in a world of scarcity. Commercial production today is abundant, thriving, and more connected than ever. As the industry evolves, it’s time to leave exclusivity in the past and embrace models that reflect today’s tools and realities.

Freelancing is no longer just an alternative—it’s the solution. I want to help lead the charge into this new era, proving that flexibility and abundance deliver better outcomes for directors, production companies, and the entire industry.

Let’s stop clinging to outdated models and start building for what’s next.