Independence in production isn’t inefficiency; it’s part of the value
Droga5 London Head of Production Peter Montgomery argues that as agencies bring more production in-house, the industry risks undervaluing the independence, perspective and creative friction that external partners provide.
)
The rapid push within agencies to bring more production in-house is a rational response to shrinking margins, procurement pressure and the gradual erosion of the traditional agency model.
It’s a business decision designed to protect margins in a market where agency fees are under sustained pressure. Clients may benefit along the way, but they may also pay more than they expect and give up more than they realise. One of the risks in this debate is that cost and speed start to stand in for value. In-house production may appear cheaper and faster on the surface, but that doesn’t necessarily lead to better outcomes.
In-house production may appear cheaper and faster on the surface, but that doesn’t necessarily lead to better outcomes.
An agency’s role isn’t simply to make work efficiently, but to select the right partners with the right talent, expertise and experience for the idea at hand. The ability to curate and choose is where agencies create disproportionate value for clients. With in-housing, that role is diminished.
In-house production can absolutely work, particularly for high-volume output or tight turnarounds. But it isn’t automatically cheaper, and it won’t always be the right model for the best work.
Independent sound studios, post houses and production companies survive by being competitive on price and relentless in hunting down the best talent. They have to be. Their existence depends on it. In-house units face different pressures. Their job isn’t just to do good work, it’s to deliver profit back into the wider organisation.
[third-party production partners] don’t just execute ideas, they help shape them, drawing on judgement built over years of making work in varied situations.
What often gets lost in this conversation is the value of third-party production partners for agencies and clients. They don’t just execute ideas, they help shape them, drawing on judgement built over years of making work in varied situations. The best work in our industry comes from collaboration and shared ambition, but also from genuinely different ways of thinking. Often it’s the productive tension between perspectives that leads to the strongest work. That friction can sharpen ideas, hone craft and help prevent work becoming predictable.
External partners bring fresh energy, specialist expertise and creative judgement. We don’t go to them simply to make the work, but to improve it. They see ideas through a different lens, informed by what they’re creating elsewhere, the talent they work with and the risks they’re prepared to take. Their independence is not inefficiency. It is part of their value.
There’s a wider risk worth noting. The more production is consolidated, the more it invites procurement oversight, indirectly squeezing production budgets and gradually giving more control to third-party cost controllers.
If in-housing becomes the default rather than a choice, something will be lost.
It’s also worth acknowledging how this discussion intersects with the rise of AI in production. Much of what’s coming is still uncertain, and no one yet knows exactly how these tools will reshape the work. But there’s a strong chance that some of the most compelling work of the next few years will be hybrid in nature, combining new tools with human taste, craft and collaboration. That kind of work is more likely to emerge when we’re able to collaborate with the best talent, whoever they are and wherever they sit.
None of this is an argument against in-house production. It has a clear role and is here to stay. But if in-housing becomes the default rather than a choice, something will be lost.
The work may get faster, some of it may get cheaper, but it also risks becoming more generic, which in the long run helps no one.
