Three agencies, two markups, one lost idea.

The traditional model divides communication into three responsibilities. It is precisely at the seams between them that the original purpose gets lost.

How it usually works

One agency develops the strategy. A production company executes what is in the concept. A media agency handles distribution.

Three partners, three briefings, three invoices. And at every handover, the same thing happens: The next party takes on an outcome, but not the rationale behind it.

The production company does not know why a specific stance was important. The media agency does not know which audience the piece was intended for. Everyone delivers correctly, and yet the result turns out differently than intended.

On top of that comes a cost factor that is rarely talked about. Services that an agency purchases through third parties typically incur an industry-standard markup of 15 to 25 percent. With two handovers, you pay it twice.

Why the industry is currently restructuring

According to the Media Budgets Survey 2026 by the World Federation of Advertisers and Ebiquity, 75 percent of global marketing leaders plan to integrate media and creative more closely. Old news, really.

The major holding companies are following suit. WPP has merged its media agencies into a single unit, consolidated production capabilities, and is bringing its creative agencies together under one roof. After roughly thirty years of separated responsibilities, integration is back. The industry calls it the rebundling era.

Forrester puts it clearly for 2026: Agencies that continue to position themselves as traditional creative suppliers run the risk of being systematically sidelined.

What this means for a company

Anyone working with three service providers handles their coordination themselves. The briefing is written three times, follow-up questions run through the internal marketing management, and if something doesn't fit, it is unclear who is responsible. This effort never appears in any proposal. It is borne in-house.

The loss of substance here is greater than the organizational friction. A stance only survives a handover if someone carries it along. In practice, what travels between partners is a file, not understanding.

Production First, and where the argument ends

A caveat is needed at this point, otherwise it becomes too convenient.

Naturally, a production house will say that production is the right starting point.

Production First does not mean that production is the most important thing. It means that the starting point is what actually happens in the company, rather than a concept that subsequently searches for an occasion.

But this is precisely where the boundary lies. Occasions alone do not make a strategy.

In every company, something is constantly happening that could be captured. Anyone who produces everything possible from that gets material, not programming. The sequence is therefore: goals first, then the selection of occasions that contribute to them, then production.

Three to five recurring occasions with a clear objective beat twenty that merely look good.

Production means technology, and technology means standards

There is a second reason why production does not belong at the end.

Every production decision is a technical decision. Camera, resolution, codec, audio format, file naming, storage. Whoever fails to define this beforehand defines it anyway—just unconsciously and differently every single time.

Every company that has worked with changing service providers over the years knows the consequences. Didn't we have drone footage—where is it stored? Which camera was used back then? Can anyone open this format?

This is not a filing problem; it is a loss of value. Material that cannot be found or is no longer readable practically does not exist, regardless of what it cost.

Then there is the channel side. Every platform has its own requirements for format, length, aspect ratio, subtitles / SRT files, and loudness—and they change constantly. Anyone who produces without knowing where the material will run later produces for the editing suite instead of the audience.

And this is where the real value emerges

When these standards are in place, something happens that most companies do not account for. Productions turn into an archive.

Not a folder of old files, but a usable asset base. Tagged, searchable, in a format that can still be opened in five years.

This changes the economics. Each production no longer pays off solely for its own occasion, but for all subsequent ones. The second film becomes more cost-effective than the first—not because less is filmed, but because existing material can be repurposed.

Broadcasters have always known this. There, the archive is not a storage unit, but an asset that becomes more valuable with every year. In most companies, it is the opposite: a cost block that disappears after publication.

Why we never separated them

Inventive originated in media production and added strategy and distribution along the way, not the other way around. That is why we never had three separate domains that needed to be reunited. What is currently a restructuring for the major holding companies is our default state.

This is not something we invented. It is the operating model of a broadcaster. There, editorial, production, and programming have never been split across three companies.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does strategy lose substance during handovers?
Because an outcome is passed along between partners, but not the rationale behind it. The production company receives a concept, not the discussion from which it emerged. What is not written in the document is lost, and what matters most is rarely in the document.

What does Production First mean?
The starting point is what actually happens within the company, not a concept that subsequently searches for an occasion. What matters is the preceding sequence: first the goals, then the selection of occasions, then the production. Without this prior decision, you get material instead of programming.

Why are technical standards part of the strategy?
Because codec, resolution, naming, and storage determine whether material is still usable in three years. Without defined standards, each service provider creates a different state, and the archive becomes unusable. As a result, every single production loses its subsequent value.

Is integration always better?
Not necessarily. For large international campaigns involving PR, out-of-home advertising, and global media buying, the traditional model remains viable. For ongoing formats and high-frequency corporate communications, the integrated approach is faster and more consistent.

Wrap-Up

The traditional model distributes thinking, producing, and distributing across three partners. At every handover, the rationale is lost, and two of them carry a markup of 15 to 25 percent. The industry is currently correcting this. Production First is not an end in itself: Without upfront decisions regarding goals and occasions, you simply end up generating arbitrary output faster. With solid technical standards, on the other hand, you create something most underestimate: an archive that makes every subsequent production more cost-effective.

How many partners stand between your idea and distribution?

If it is more than one, it pays to take a closer look at what happens at the seams. Schedule a call

AI in the Loop: The contents of this article were developed with AI-assisted research and editorially evaluated. The texts were accelerated using AI and written by our experts. All figures, data, and facts are substantiated with sources. Topics and stance reflect our experience, consulting services, and offerings.