Getting Agency, Director, and Editor on the Same Page

Start with what changed

The approved treatment, latest script, and production notes may describe slightly different films. A line was rewritten on set. A planned location disappeared. The best performance came from a take that departed from the boards. Give the editor that history before asking for a faithful first cut.

Bring the agency producer, creative lead, director, and editor into the discussion. Include the post producer so that a creative request can be considered alongside the schedule. If a brand decision maker cannot attend, someone in the room needs to understand their expectations and have a way to confirm them.

The handoff should include preferred takes with reasons, known gaps in the footage, and any request made during production that has not yet been approved. “The client asked us to try it” and “this must be in the first presentation” are different instructions.

Find the disagreement inside the reference

Consider a hypothetical fragrance spot. The director brings a reference with long, still close-ups. The agency likes its abrupt ending. The client likes the prominence of the bottle. All three can approve the same reference while expecting a different edit.

Play the relevant passage and explain the choice. “Stay with the face after the line; that hesitation is what we want” gives the editor something to use. “Make it cinematic” leaves them to guess whether the request concerns pace, lighting, music, or scale.

Then ask what should change for this campaign. A reference may take twenty seconds to establish a mood your spot has to establish in five. Borrowing its pace without discussing the duration can leave the product and end line fighting for whatever time remains.

Decide what the first cut has to prove

Agree on the question before agreeing on the number of versions. Is the team choosing between two structures? Testing how far to take a performance? Seeing whether the product can appear earlier without spoiling a reveal? Each calls for a different editorial approach.

Also agree on the level of finish needed to judge the idea. If a screen replacement carries the joke, a blank screen may make the scene impossible to evaluate. That temporary composite needs someone’s time before the presentation.

In LBB’s 2026 editing outlook, Abandon Editorial’s Jonny Mass and Lost Planet’s Casey Cayko describe growing expectations for polished offline presentations, including temporary effects. Our response is to identify which unfinished elements could prevent a useful review and budget for those first.

Explain what the audience is seeing when you present. A temporary track can establish rhythm without being an available licensing option. A rough graphic can establish timing without representing the final design. Reviewers need that context before their preferences harden around either one.

A kickoff agenda you can use

Send these questions with the current brief and deliverables list. Ask people to arrive with answers where they have them.

1. The idea: what should someone understand after one viewing, and which moment makes that happen?
2. The footage: what changed on set, which takes deserve attention, and what are we missing?
3. The boundaries: which lines, claims, product details, and endings are approved requirements? Which choices are still open?
4. The presentation: what decision are we asking for, who will see the cut, and what temporary work is needed to make it readable?
5. The campaign: which durations, crops, markets, and alternate endings need editorial work? When will their requirements be confirmed?
6. The review: who combines the notes, who approves the direction, and when are their responses due?

An unanswered question needs a name and a due date. “Legal to confirm” is not enough information to schedule a voiceover recording; identify who is getting the answer and when the recording can proceed.

Give conflicting notes back to someone who can decide

Imagine the agency asks to preserve a pause while the brand asks for the product to appear sooner. Sending both notes to the editor as equally mandatory creates an unresolved brief inside the timeline.

The producer should bring the conflict back to the creative lead. The editor can propose a comparison: keep the pause in one version and introduce the product through a different shot in another. The team then needs to choose which approach better serves the idea. Testing alternatives is useful when there is a decision waiting at the end.

Describe the concern before prescribing the fix. “We do not understand why she changes her mind” leaves room to examine the preceding shot, reaction, and music. “Cut twelve frames” may still be the right instruction after that discussion.

Leave a record the next reviewer can follow

A short review note can prevent the team from reopening the same decision without realizing it. For the hypothetical fragrance spot, it might read:

• Decision: keep the pause in the main film; bring the bottle into the opening of the shorter version.
• Reason: the main film needs the hesitation for the performance to read. The shorter version will start later in the scene.
• Approval: record the names of the agency and brand reviewers who agreed.
• Still open: music availability and final end-line wording, with an owner and response date for each.
• Next review: compare the shorter opening and confirm whether it communicates the same idea.

Keep the record beside the review link. When someone new joins, they can see the reasoning and challenge it deliberately. The editor can spend the next session working on the film instead of reconstructing the last meeting.