How we handle a brand that wants to poach our creator

Names and identifying details have been changed.

I remember the Friday afternoon clearly. My phone buzzed, and it was Michelle, one of our key strategists. Her voice, usually calm and collected, had an edge to it. "Hey Jon," she began, "We've got a bit of a situation with the Luna collaboration. Sarah, our contact at the brand, just sent an email directly to Alex." Alex is one of our top beauty creators, the kind of talent every brand dreams of, and the Luna campaign was a big one for us. My stomach tightened. Directly? That was a red flag. Michelle continued, "The email's got a subject line that says 'Exclusive Offer – Direct Partnership Opportunity.' And it's not a general outreach, Jon. It mentions specific campaign ideas, even budgets we discussed, but framed as if we weren't involved."

That's when you feel it, the familiar mix of frustration and disbelief. Poaching. It’s part of the game sometimes, a risk we knowingly take, but it never feels good. Especially when you've invested time, effort, and trust in building a relationship with a brand, only for them to try and cut you out of the picture with one of your most valued creators.

In our business, a creator is more than just a talent. They're a partner, an extension of our team. We vet them, nurture their growth, help them understand their value, and connect them with opportunities that align with their brand and audience. And for a brand to go around us, it's not just a breach of etiquette; it’s a breach of trust.

So, what do you do? Panic isn't an option. The first step, always, is to protect your creator. Alex hadn't replied to Sarah's email yet, which was a good sign. It meant she respected our relationship enough to loop us in first. That trust, built over years, became our first line of defense. We immediately drafted a polite, but firm, response for Alex to send back to Luna. It acknowledged their direct offer, thanked them, but reiterated that all communication and negotiations for her partnerships were handled exclusively by our agency. This put the ball back in their court, without making Alex seem ungrateful or difficult. It also signaled to Luna that Alex was loyal and professional.

Next, it was our turn to address the brand directly. This is where you have to walk a fine line. Aggression rarely works. Instead, we scheduled a call with Sarah and her director. The tone? Concerned, not confrontational. We started by expressing our surprise and disappointment. We reminded them of the value we brought to the table—our expertise in creator selection, campaign strategy, legal compliance, and payment processing. We highlighted the successful work we'd already done on their first campaign with Alex and the positive results generated. We specifically referenced their direct email and gently pointed out how such actions could undermine the very partnerships they were trying to build.

"Look," I explained on the call, "we’ve invested a lot in building this relationship, both with your brand and with Alex. We believe in transparency and open communication. When you go directly to our creators, it creates confusion and frankly, it undermines the trust we've worked hard to establish. It also puts Alex in a difficult position, and we want to ensure all our creators feel respected and supported in their partnerships."

The director, initially defensive, began to soften. They apologized, cited "internal miscommunication" and "a desire to streamline," which, while plausible, felt like a convenient excuse. But the objective wasn't to punish them. It was to re-establish boundaries and clarify expectations for future collaborations. We made it clear that while we valued their business, we couldn't continue working with them if there was a risk of our creators being approached directly without our knowledge or involvement. Our terms of service, which they had signed, explicitly covered this, and we calmly referenced that clause.

Sometimes, a brand truly doesn't understand the dynamics of agency-creator relationships. They might see an agency as an unnecessary middleman, rather than a crucial partner that manages complexities, protects both parties, and ensures a smooth, professional process. Other times, it's a deliberate attempt to cut costs or gain more control. Regardless of the motivation, consistency in your response is key.

What happened with Luna? They backed down. They reiterated their commitment to working through us and apologized again to Alex via email, copied to us. We completed the campaign, and it was successful. We continue to work with Luna, but our vigilance with them is understandably higher. We learned to include very explicit language in our contracts up front about direct communication with creators, making it clear that any attempt to bypass us violates the agreement.

The takeaway from that Friday afternoon and countless similar situations since then is this: always prioritize the creator's well-being and trust, and approach the brand with clear boundaries and a focus on long-term partnership value, not just immediate conflict.