Whose work is it anyway? Are ad execs right to show off past work on their current agency website?

What about the other way around: Agencies featuring work when none of the people who created it work there any longer?

At least in this case Brands who are interested in the caliber of work shown on the Milk and Honey United web-sight would be speaking to the right people to create something of that level for them.

The name on the door has very little to do with the work, it’s all about the people who do the work.

Andy and Steve are two of the best in the business clearly.

So many creatives have made their careers from merely ‘being in the room’ when famous campaigns were created, but have inflated their involvement over time. I would love to name names.

Andy and Steve are both talented. I’ve worked with them. But their website does not clearly differentiate between Milk + Honey’s work vs the work of other agencies. The tiny disclaimer on the foot of a few pages does not make up for it, especially when the showreel is a mix but watermarked purely with M+H’s logo. Klonhammer is towing the company line and cannot in good conscience really believe the soundbites she’s peddling.

While this has never really surfaced as an issue in our industry before, it does raise some good discussion points. Historically (and probably the reason this issue has never come up), agencies only show work produced by the agency. Sure, the people may have moved on (as mentioned by a previous commenter), but the work was a collective endeavour and came from a client relationship and agency ethos that belonged to the agency. And the average tenure of staff was much longer back then. There was usually someone who worked on the project still at the agency.

But we’re entering a new era now. More breakaways and startups. The people behind those startups need to show what they’re capable of. It’s similar to an agency’s creds including the bios of the staff which list awards, projects and brands from the employee’s history, not the agency’s.

On the balance of all the above, it seems reasonable for a new agency to showcase the portfolios of the agency’s people to prove their capability. But it should be separated from the new agency’s work on different pages and clearly labeled. The historical work of the people should be on the people’s bio page (and credit the agencies where the work was made).

But if we think that is reasonable, then it is also reasonable for ANY agency to do the same. Even the big ones can now start adding the standout historical work of their current staff to their websites.

Where does it end?

In most cases the client – who is paying for the work – will contractually have ownership of the work/IP once they have paid the invoice. Anyone using the work in any way would need their permission or approval.

From a client pov I think they’ve done a bit of a dodgy here. Putting these ads with their watermark on top clearly suggests all work was made under the Milk & Honey banner. Why not have the same reel with their actual work, then a link to “About the founders”, and then a reel with “all our previous work at previous agencies” with essentially a bibliography below the video. I’d imagine people wouldn’t be so up in arms about that.

Anyone who leaves my agency will be very very clear as to what work they can and can’t display on their new agency.

Holding companies don’t really care (about anything) so there is no one to hold chancers to account.

Great to see journalism in our industry doing what journalism does – holding people to account

it would be helpful if a lawyer was asked to provide a POV here. I’ve always wondered where the law stands in relation to disclosure requirements and ownership entitlements.

Agency credits aside, I’d be surprised if brand owners were aware or accepting of this as well.

How is this even a question? How is anyone confused?

Do you think an Agency can show in its agency credentials, work completed by another Agency, without any attribution, and pass it off as its own work? Do you think a creative person can show in their personal credentials, work completed by another person, without any attribution, and pass it off as their own work?

If you cannot answer ‘No’ to both these simple questions.. jog on, your head has clearly disappeared up your backside.

The solution is pretty simple: You can show whatever you like – just correctly label/attribute the people & agency involved. Clients care about the talent working on their campaign, not the shingle on the door.

No one should take credit for work other people have done.

Milk & Honey, Wildlings and a bunch of others are experienced, talented creatives with enviable experience. The networks are just playing the only card they have left.

The work showcases the thinking.

Leave the indies alone.

Klonhammer and the founders should know better than this as company directors and – one would hope – experienced industry professionals. Almost all agency employment agreements stipulate that the IP for work created while in the employ of said agency remains with that agency. And almost client contracts stipulate – on top of that – that the IP for work created on their behalf by the agency (which owns the IP by virtue of its employment agreements), is then transferred to the client. So either way, that IP is not owned by ex-employees and cannot be used to promote their other agency employers, no matter how big (or small) the disclaimers may be.

Great to see an article actually asking an interesting Question and getting some views on it.
Do more of this.

Well done, Mumbrella. You won’t find this kind of critical article on other certain industry sites.

Fair play, M&H have every right to showcase work from other agencies developed by their cofounders, but yes it should be more clearly labeled as such.

There, done. Not hard.

ok so I work at adidas and produce some innovative designs. I move to Nike who like my adidas designs, so Nike use my adidas examples to promote their new Nike products, cos like I designed them all so s’all good. Nuff said.

To me it’s absolutely outrageous that indies show work that was done in other agencies, without any acknowledgement of the fact. It’s the other agency’s IP, and all work is a collaborative effort, not to mention that the other agency had to win the client in the first place in order to even do the work. I’ve even seen cases where someone freelanced at an agency, played a very minor role in an award-winning campaign, then opened their own shop and added it to their portfolio, with no mention of the previous agency. At minimum there should be an acknowledgement of where the work was done, but even that feels generous.

Let’s face it – agency turn-over is high. Lots of agencies promote the work done by people who have left.

It is also far from unknown for big agencies to hire freelance teams to work on pitches and campaigns, then flip to their FTE team when the work is in roll-out or “BAU” mode.

I would suggest that a more transparent world also requires big agencies to disclose this fact, including on their websites…! So big agencies declare work done by people who (a) no longer work there or (b) never worked there.

I think people are clutching at straws having an issue with people crediting work from other agencies having been there before.. Take Share A Coke. Everyone knows it was one planner at Ogilvy who came up with the idea. Yet if you ask about 100 people in the industry, they came up with it.

It happens everywhere.

This is a very good debate for the industry to be having.

So, pity the creative and the new business starter. Every experience, thought, and output now needs to be documented to a particular place and time, to satisfy the advertising Taliban? This is the same nonsense as ‘everyone’s creative’ and ‘an idea can come from anywhere’.
The sad fact is that for an industry that is supposed to be creative, and that is what we sell as our ‘magic’, we have media platforms dominated by the thoughts of those that are not creative and are more than likely in some way jealous of those who are.
In fact, it’s dispiriting for an industry publication, how very few articles feature creatives actually talking about work – but there are always the same old CMOs spouting off…

Isn’t there a bigger issue here. Just how many of you all are so petty about credit. This industry is getting out of hand. The amount of people who care so much about credit – to me the more you care about credit, the less credit you’ve probably actuallly received and deserved in your life.

I get it, there are lots of frustrated creatives working on shit briefs everywhere but this has all gone too far. Agencies now write case study videos before work goes live. It’s like a plastic surgeon sharing a before and after of a future patient that has been modified using photoshop.

It’s typically a very male thing to do – to need to always peacock and get a pat on their back. Frankly, it’s laughable.