Why the industry shouldn't need directors' cuts

Working with European and US agencies and brands, I’ve come to notice a trend that may have larger implications than we, as an industry, realise. 

In mainland Europe and the UK, in my experience, directors are expected- indeed contracted - to helm the production for an ad and oversee all of its post, through to the final edit. We either work with trusted collaborators the agency has hired, or with our longtime contacts, depending on the nature of the relationship.

Many directors feel a strong need for a director’s cut for use on their reels and beyond. 

Of course, this also happens in the US but, more commonly, the US follows a different plan of attack. The agency conceptualises a spot, and/or accepts director briefs, and selects a director. The agency also hires their third-party partners in post production including colour, music and sound design, and the director then helms production. 

After the production wraps, the director’s work is passed to post production teams, typically taking this important part of the production out of their hands. More than once, I haven’t seen a final cut until just before a campaign launches. By then, it’s too late for a director to suggest edits that better match the client’s vision, the director’s brief, or the agency’s concept. Hence, many directors feel a strong need for a director’s cut for use on their reels and beyond.  

Above: The UK and mainland European approach is often one of more artistic collaboration than that of the US.

Why do the US and Europe processes differ in this way? The UK and Europe encourage directors to collaborate with their editorial partners to furnish an optimum result. In fact, a director often won’t get the job unless they commits to this way of working. The US is the opposite, and has the reputation for a longstanding hands-on, structured editorial approach by the agency and client. Control, sometimes, steps on the toes of creative spontaneity. That’s not to say the US doesn’t produce some of the best creative in the world, just that it’s often without the director’s valuable editorial input that could make it even better. 

When brands and agencies take the time, expertise, and consideration to handpick the right director for a project, why do they not entrust those directors to bring their vision to its conclusion?

Editorial houses are not to blame for this phenomenon. Really, no one is ‘to blame’ for following one strategy over another. However, clients are often balancing existing relationships with other editorial houses that, while experienced and skilled in their own right, are not synced with the creative vision of the project from the beginning. Therefore post production is often shared between multiple vendors, without the overseeing eye of a director.  

This doesn’t make sense to me. When brands and agencies take the time, expertise, and consideration to handpick the right director for a project, why do they not entrust those directors to work alongside the editor of an ad to bring their vision to its conclusion? Why are advertising directors' cuts more prevalent in the search results of a creator’s own YouTube and Vimeo channels than the brand client’s platforms, or the ad trade media?

I want to make the case for directors' cuts to be the cuts. For the benefit of both the directors as well as the brands and agencies looking to ensure that their vision for a compelling campaign stays clear from the inception of the idea through to the final moment of post production. 

Above: A director’s collaboration with an editor is a huge part of what defines their style to begin with.

I can see the logic behind why clients would pass off a director's footage to an editor or post company of their choosing. To maintain a consistent brand image, clients work with established editors who bring enough brand knowledge to unify each of their campaigns. These relationships are often long-held and not easily broken. Nor should they be, but why not, as a minimum, utilise the director with that chosen editor, as everyone would benefit?

If a brand or agency is after a director’s visual style for their next project, utilising said director solely for the production portion shortchanges the director’s capabilities in the edit bay.

As I said, agencies hire directors for their style, based on finished reels and completed work full of edits they oversaw. If a brand or agency is after a director’s visual style for their next project, utilising said director solely for the production portion shortchanges the director’s capabilities in the edit bay, alongside a strong editor. A director’s collaboration with an editor is a huge part of what defines their style to begin with. Robbing them of that collaboration risks ending up with a final product far different from what the client, agency and director imagined. Then, if the project differs vastly from what the director expected to put on their reel, the director’s cut cycle begins anew. 

When considering changing this industry norm it’s helpful to consider what it might mean for a promising director’s career. It’s difficult enough to be awarded work when just starting out; a new director’s reel is full of specs and/or student work, and they’re trying to make their first connections. All directors have been there. When they finally get an opportunity to shoot for a major brand, eager to showcase what sets them apart from the rest, it’s demoralising to see a result that doesn’t authentically display their uniqueness.