The scenario is rough. Agencies often request pitch treatments for scripts that aren’t even approved by the client yet. Treatments are getting over-the-top: What used to be a few slides or paragraphs is now often a 30 to 40-page designed document, complete with visual research, custom writing, and layout. Production companies fear being seen as “difficult.” Ask for a treatment fee and you might be dropped from the pitch list altogether. Freelance directors hesitate to say no, knowing full well that the next person in line might say yes and get the job. Agencies don’t budget for treatment costs, so they push the ask downstream while still expecting top level visuals. And clients? They don’t even know what goes into a treatment.

Directors carrying the weight of a broken treatment system

So considering the real presence of competitive pressures, fear of blacklisting, and lack of collective enforcement, what can realistically and sustainably be done to improve this broken system?

1. Production companies need to push back collectively, especially on speculative scripts

One of the most destabilizing practices in commercial production today is the use of speculative scripts — scripts that have not been approved by the client — as the basis for treatment requests.

When agencies circulate these internally-approved-only ideas for pitch, they effectively transfer the burden of creative development to the production side. Treatments are not being used to evaluate the director’s vision. They are being used to sell the campaign idea itself to the client. That means production teams are performing unpaid strategic work that should, by all rights, sit within the agency’s scope.

The consequences of this are both economic and ethical:

  • When the campaign doesn’t move forward (which often happens), the agency walks away with no financial loss. The production company, on the other hand, has likely paid multiple freelancers to support the treatment process — researchers, writers, designers, layout artists — and often cannot recuperate these costs.
  • In some cases, production companies feel justified in delaying or withholding payment from those contributors, claiming they weren’t paid themselves. This leads to a breakdown of accountability across the chain, where nobody takes responsibility and yet the people doing the work still lose.
  • Meanwhile, directors and creative teams are routinely working through weekends, holidays, and personal milestones, all under the belief that the job exists and is worth the investment. When it turns out the campaign wasn’t even real, the psychological impact is significant.

Production companies have the leverage to stop this.  It would cut the volume of unnecessary treatment requests and help protect morale, trust, and basic resource allocation across the board.

2. Establish and share a real-world benchmark for treatment costs

Another factor keeping this cycle alive is that treatment production costs remain invisible, despite their significant financial impact.

Take a small to mid-sized production company representing five directors. If each director pitches twice a month, and each treatment costs between $3,000 and $6,000 to develop (inclusive of all creative support), that company is easily spending $30,000 to $60,000 a month just on pitching. Over a year, that’s up to $720,000 in non-reimbursable speculative investment.

And that’s assuming a one-in-three win rate. In many markets — including Brazil, Southern Europe, and much of Latin America — there is no three-bid limit, which means the odds of winning can fall to 20 percent or lower. Yet the investment per pitch remains the same.

Unlike agency pitching, which may occur a few times per quarter for large clients, production companies are pitching multiple times per week, sometimes across multiple briefs and time zones. The cumulative cost is not even in the same category.

A meaningful next step would be for production companies — perhaps through regional producer groups — to publicly share the average cost structure of a treatment. This wouldn’t be an aggressive or confrontational move. It would simply surface the true cost of a practice the industry relies on every day.

This document could:

  • Outline average budgets by treatment size
  • Break down the team roles and hours typically involved
  • Provide a range of real market prices for transparency

Once this exists, the conversation can evolve: should agencies receive it? Should clients? What kind of awareness campaign could help normalize treatment fees as part of doing business? Either way, the first step is to document the reality.

3. Directors need to organize and set clear boundaries

The Spanish directors’ association (ADDP) made headlines in 2023 for doing exactly this.

They collectively announced that their members would no longer produce treatments for free. They set suggested minimum fees, offered alternatives to written treatments (like meetings or outlines), and presented a unified message: directors are open to pitching, but not at any cost and not under exploitative terms.

The response from agencies and producers was not punitive. In fact, many welcomed the clarity. Treatment fees became more normalised in Spain almost immediately, not because laws changed, but because expectations shifted.

This approach is viable in other markets too. A group of freelance directors — even without a formal union — could publish a shared position. Something as simple as:

  • “We do not develop treatments for speculative scripts.
  • We are open to outlines and meetings, but full treatments require fair compensation.
  • We’re committed to professionalism, and we expect the same in return.”

Even a small show of solidarity among directors can create permission for others to follow. It doesn’t require confrontation, just a baseline of professional self-respect.

It’s also worth remembering that even salaried directors should support this shift. In an industry as volatile as advertising, today’s salary does not guarantee tomorrow’s. Establishing standards for fair compensation helps everyone — not just the freelancers — by reinforcing the value of creative labor across the board.

Germany provides another example: production companies there have introduced a pitch cost-sharing model (Pitch Cost Share 2.0), now used across most commercial briefs, and agencies like David+Martin, which now budget for treatment work even when clients don’t. It spreads the financial responsibility and improves transparency.

So What’s the Path Forward?

The path forward isn’t abstract. It’s concrete and actionable.

We know these are not perfect solutions. The challenges outlined here are the result of years, if not decades, of systemic decisions across the global advertising industry. There is no single or simple fix. But what we have shared are concrete, realistic steps that can start to shift the current dynamic. This is not about claiming to have all the answers — it is about offering a starting point.

1. Production companies must collectively stop taking speculative scripts

This single move would eliminate a major source of unpaid labor and restore fairness to the pitch process.

2. Industry leaders should create and distribute a benchmark document for treatment costs

This would increase transparency and create a common reference point, something that could be shared within production circles, with agencies, or even clients depending on the strategy.

3. Directors should publicly commit to boundaries, and back each other

Whether salaried or freelance, directors benefit from setting clear minimums. It creates space for professionalism and sustainability.

Why do we care?

At Ghost, we’re not just advocating for better practices — we’re supporting them. As a company working on the front lines of the treatment process, we see firsthand how unsustainable the current system can be. Yes, we get paid for the work we do, but we still operate inside an environment where creative labor is routinely undervalued, and that affects everyone.

We want to see directors thrive in an industry that respects their vision and compensates them fairly. Because ultimately, that leads to stronger collaborations, healthier work cultures, and better commercials on screen.

That’s why we do what we do: to help great films get made. And while we may not be the most affected by these broken systems, we’re still impacted, which is why we stand firmly behind any initiative that challenges the status quo and moves the industry forward.

What Next?

If this resonates with you, we’ll be sharing more deep dives into the craft of treatment writing and design. Let us know if there’s a topic you’d like us to explore next.

🔗 Check our work at http://www.treatmentsbyghost.com
🔗 Job inquiries info@treatmentsbyghost.com
🔗 Follow @ghost_treatments for more insights