Does 'exclusive' really exist anymore?

The three terms, 'exclusive roster', 'freelancer', and 'loan-outs' are one we all know and hear regularly in the production world.

But have we ever stopped to think about how compatible, logical or perhaps at odds these terms are? They’re foundational to the way our industry operates – but when you take a closer look, some cracks start to show.

When you take a closer look, some cracks start to show.

Let’s examine all three with a critical eye and see how well they hold up in practice.

Above: If we take a closer look at the traditional representation model, do cracks start to show?

First, let’s look at the exclusive roster. In theory, this represents a lineup of directors who have chosen to be fully exclusive with a production company, meaning their only path to winning jobs is through that company. In exchange, the production company is essentially pledging its exclusivity back to those directors, committing to work solely on their behalf to develop and advance their directing careers.

Do [these practices] hold up in today’s production landscape?

Now, loan-outs. In theory, this is the fee a production company charges another production company when they want to use a director from their roster. Typically, this loan-out fee — often around 10% — is paid by the borrowing production company, effectively compensating the original company for 'lending out' their exclusive director.

Then, we have freelancers. These are directors who operate as fully independent free agents, not tied to any roster. Freelancers can be pitched and sold by any production company, as long as the company secures their permission beforehand and properly 'clears' them for submission.

Interestingly, freelancers are often pitched by production companies that also maintain exclusive rosters, creating a dynamic where both exclusive directors and freelancers are competing for the same opportunities under the same roof.

Above: If you can loan out a director, does that mean they're not actually exclusive? 

Now that we’ve laid out the key players, let’s take a step back and examine how these concepts interact. When you put them under a critical lens, questions begin to surface: Are these practices logical? Do they serve directors as well as they claim to? And, perhaps most importantly, do they hold up in today’s production landscape?

Let’s start with the production companies that supplement their exclusive rosters with freelancers. When the perfect fit for a project isn’t on their roster, these companies don’t hesitate to pitch a freelancer instead — sometimes even submitting that freelancer alongside their exclusive directors. 

Do [these practices] serve directors as well as they claim to? And, perhaps most importantly, do they hold up in today’s production landscape?

At first glance, this might seem practical: the company is prioritising winning jobs, regardless of where the director comes from. But, for the exclusive directors on their roster, this raises a serious question: If the company is willing to pitch freelancers for jobs, why did they sign me exclusively in the first place?

Then, with that in mind, let’s consider loan-outs. A loan-out essentially says, 'This director is ours, but you can use them — for a fee'. So, wait, does that mean the director isn’t truly exclusive? If they’re available to other production companies on the open market, how exclusive can they be? 

What’s more, loan-outs make it harder for anyone else to submit the director effectively. By presenting the director as exclusive, the company creates an extra layer of complexity, slowing down the clearance process with statements like; 'we’ll need to look into a loan-out'. In reality, if the director is available for loan-out, the exclusivity is more a perception than a practice.