One written in Antwerp, one in Brussels, for the same campaign. Part of that duplication is necessary, and the main part is not.
What genuinely has to be doubled
The casting and the text, always
Five elements that cannot be shared.
The people on screen, for the reasons dealt with above.
The text, because a hook is not translated, it is rewritten.
The visible setting, otherwise the two versions look too alike.
The subtitles, redone and corrected in each language.
And the distribution calendar, which follows two distinct regional windows.
Everything upstream, never
Six elements that should be written once only.
The campaign objective and the success indicator.
The product promise and the list of authorised wordings.
The prohibitions: what must never appear on screen.
The formats and delivery specifications.
The overall budget and its split between production and distribution.
And the creator rate grid, without which the same person is paid two different prices by the same brand.
One direct consequence: when each agency drafts those six points separately, the brand gets two different campaigns carrying the same name, and the final report is comparable on nothing.
Who owns the pool
One list, two bookings
Four rules for sharing a pool without creating conflict.
A single document, held by the brand and not by one of the agencies.
A booking counts for the whole campaign, not for one video.
A person booked by one agency can no longer be proposed by the other, even for a different role.
And a written exclusivity period, short and paid, rather than an implicit exclusivity nobody agreed to.
Three reasons why agencies resist that sharing.
The pool is a commercial asset: sharing it means giving away the advantage.
The list contains negotiated rates, which no agency wants to expose.
And the relationship with a regular creator is worth more than an isolated order.
The practical solution is to share only booked names and dates, never rates or contact details. That is enough to avoid the duplicate without dismantling anybody's business.
What you check before signing with two structures
| Point | What to read | The risk if ignored |
|---|---|---|
| The exclusivity clause | Its exact scope | A breach of contract |
| The sector covered | The barred competitors | A conflict at a client |
| The notice period | How long it takes to leave | A long lock-in |
What is told to each
That you also work elsewhere, unless a clause says otherwise. Silence on this point does more damage than the information itself, and it always comes out.
What is kept rigorously separate
Files, upload accounts and correspondence. One client's rushes appearing in a folder shared with another structure is a contractual fault, not a clumsy mistake.
What to do at the next planning meeting
Six decisions to take in an hour.
Designate who writes the upstream brief, one person, on the brand's side.
Set the shared objective and indicator.
Open the shared booking register.
Decide the two distribution windows, which do not coincide.
Align the rate grid, so the same person is paid the same on both sides.
And plan a separate report by region, without which the average hides each one's performance.
One last marker: the Belgian problem is not having two agencies, it is making them write twice what should have been written once. Double the casting, the text and the calendar. Do not double the objective, the rules, or the list of people already booked.
