Stress test: How can independent production navigate 2026 and beyond?

Survive ’25!" they said. "The shit-show will be over by then and everything will go back to normal!” No pressure on 2026 then, eh?

But, whoever they were, they weren’t entirely wrong. 2025 was an absolute arse of a year. 2026 on the other hand (politics and BBC f*ups aside) is so far, looking pretty promising!

What does the future look like, and how on earth do we get through it?

Many directors and companies are shooting, UK crews are busy, studios are full. It feels a little bit like *insert last good year in advertising production here* (although it’ll never be the 90s again - check yourself) and, on top of that, it’s finally stopped raining and the sun is out.

So, what does the future look like, and how on earth do we get through it? That’s a helluva question, and one that could encompass all sorts of negativity, so rather than focusing on the obvious threats to the business, I’m going to talk with a positive spin, be nice and constructive, and maybe even a little bit jolly.

Above: "The three-way pitch process is fundamental to excellent outcomes for clients."

So, setting to one side the inexorable march of agency in-house production all over the turf of the independent production sector’s perfectly manicured but weed infested lawn, we’ll talk about everything else instead, and we’re not going down the AI hole either, that’s a vortex for another time.

Let’s instead talk about the three-way bid, or the pitching process and how utterly great and essential it is. Rogue is a huge champion of the three-way bid. It’s by far the best way for creatives to see the potential options for their ideas, and by far the best way for clients to get the best value for money for their productions. 

Because the independent production sector is fiercely competitive - the three-way pitch process is fundamental to excellent outcomes for clients.

We are also big fans of working with intelligent cost-controllers as - when they do their job properly, protecting the client whilst championing the importance of the craft - they can be invaluable to the production company, agency, client and project. When they do their job badly, however... well, that’s a different article, on a different platform, which would mainly be bleeped out.

And because the independent production sector is fiercely competitive - the three-way pitch process is fundamental to excellent outcomes for clients. We LOVE pitching against our rivals. It makes us better, keener and gives the agency the best job and the client the best price, but there’s no denying that it comes at a vast financial cost to production companies, and a vast emotional cost to directors and their hard-working producers and EPs.

Above: Pitching is an expensive business which can reach up to £100K per year for a medium sized production company.

Unrecovered pitch costs can reach up to £100K per year in a medium sized production company which, of course, is unsustainable, and it’s because treatments have become unlimited in their scope and production companies are asked for endless changes before these things get to the client. 

It’s also down to the fact that there are simply more directors than ever before, so competition is fiercer and conversion rates for production companies and directors therefore lower. And on top of all that, it’s currently unpaid work, which could be classed as exploitative. In any other system/industry, it probably would be.

There are simply more directors than ever before, so competition is fiercer and conversion rates for production companies and directors therefore lower.

So, in the absence of a shift towards charging for treatments (which the German market has managed to do) I imagine we’ll start looking to limit work done on treatments for everyone’s sake; pity the production company and director sure, but also pity the poor ECD who must plough through endless 60-page documents all saying the same thing, apart from the, ‘And here’s how the film could run’ bit.

Above: You can't maintain the craft if you're simultaneously composing a film for 16:9, 9:16 and 1:1.

Now, let’s talk about clients wanting more for the same budget. Obviously, time and money are the biggest challenges that we face in production, nothing new there. But what’s actually happening is we’re not just tasked with delivering a nice juicy 60 second ad, we’re asked to deliver all the ratios for all the formats in all the lengths – multiplying the scope without multiplying the budget or the schedule.

It’s kind of impossible to do that and protect the craft at the same time? There’s a common misconception that you can maintain the craft in the composition of a cinematic film for 16:9, whilst also making it work in 9:16, and 1:1. Well, in the words and comedic delivery of Jake Peralta in Brooklyn Nine Nine, “Ya Can’t!”. 

We’re not just tasked with delivering a nice juicy 60 second ad, we’re asked to deliver all the ratios for all the formats in all the lengths.

If you want a beautifully uncompromised, composed 16:9 film, your 9:16 film will take the hit. Either it needs to be letterboxed (which is fine btw), or it will be compromised in its framing. Ideally you shoot each format separately on its ideal lens. Or you ask the director to shoot wider on the 16:9 film so that you can chop in for 9:16 (please don’t), which naturally then means you’re compromising both. 

So, when agencies have a long deliverable list, with all the formats, but no extra time or money to make them, that’s when we give a sigh of frustration and take a little time out for some breathing exercises to reset the vagus nerve.

Above: Sometimes having restrictions can be a good thing, and constraints can make good creatives, directors and producers thrive. 

While breathing exercises and frustrated hand-wringing may help in the short term when this is levied at you, the thing to remember as a producer is to resist the urge to wail and bemoan the state of the industry. Don't rail against the challenges to production, cry that everything’s going to shit and that the creative isn’t as good as it used to be. 

Yes, we could argue that creating more, for the same money and in a shorter time frame means that fewer creative risks are taken, and that there’s a danger of creativity becoming bland and that we’re chasing the algorithm over the art. Or we could argue that sometimes, just sometimes, it makes the creative BETTER. 

Give a director a set of impossible parameters and the very best ones will find a creative solution. 

The very best ECDs/CDs directors and their producers are the ones who recognise that great creativity can sometimes thrive through constraint and restraint. Give a director a set of impossible parameters and the very best ones will find a creative solution. They must, or their job is defunct. Work within the constraint, work within the restriction and – maybe, sometimes - that’s where the magic happens. But only if the job is designed with those restrictions in mind.