If you ask ten talent managers whether talent poaching is a problem in the creator economy, you’ll probably get ten different answers.
Some see it as a fundamental threat to the sustainability of smaller agencies. Others believe it’s simply part of operating in a competitive marketplace.
Most sit somewhere in the middle.
To better understand where the industry actually stands, The Talent Times spoke to agency leaders representing creators, influencers and talent across the UK creator economy, from boutique management companies to larger international agencies.
What emerged wasn’t a simple “yes” or “no” answer.
In fact, the overwhelming consensus was something far more interesting – Talent movement isn’t the problem. The way some agencies go about it is.
First Things First: Creators Are Not Property
Almost every contributor started from the same position – creators should be free to leave. They should be free to explore opportunities and should never feel trapped in agency relationships that no longer serve them.
Charnelle Merritt, Director of Build and Bloom Management, was one of the strongest advocates for this view; “Most of the time, what people call ‘poaching’ is simply movement. The creator economy is maturing, creators are running businesses, agencies themselves are a business too. Movement is inevitable and healthy, just like moving jobs is.”
Dana Pirkle, Executive Vice President of Talent at NewGen, agreed; “Talent movement is a natural part of the industry. If your agency consistently delivers value, supports creators effectively and helps them grow their platforms and reach their goals, retention should be less of a concern.”
She also pointed out something many agency leaders privately acknowledge but rarely say publicly; “Creators’ needs and ambitions evolve over time and it’s unrealistic to expect them to remain with one agency indefinitely.”
Charlotte Stavrou, Founder of SevenSix Agency, echoed the same sentiment; “The creator economy is a competitive industry, so talent movement is inevitable. Creators grow, their needs change, agencies evolve and sometimes a different agency becomes a better fit.”
If we’re being honest, that’s probably a sign of a healthy market. The creator economy has matured significantly over the last decade. Creators are more informed. They are more commercially aware. Subsequently, they’re increasingly viewing representation through the same lens as any other business partnership.
The days of agencies expecting lifelong loyalty simply because they signed someone first appear to be disappearing.
But that’s only half the story.
Smaller Agencies Feel The Impact Very Differently
Whilst most contributors accepted that talent movement as inevitable, smaller agencies repeatedly highlighted the reality that not all agencies experience that movement equally.
For larger organisations, losing one creator may barely register. For a boutique agency, it can be transformative. Or worse – devastating.
One agency founder who requested not to be named perhaps put it most bluntly; “The larger the agency, the less they see it as an issue.”
“For those of us further down the pyramid it actually is a real problem.”
Their frustration centres around a familiar scenario. A smaller agency discovers talent, develops talent, builds the creator’s profile and commercial value, only for a larger agency to arrive once much of the hard work has already been done.
“Every single one of us has heard of or experienced first-hand this type of behaviour of poaching a handful of times in our career”, he continued.
For them, this isn’t an isolated issue, “It’s not a couple of bad apples – it’s endemic within the industry.”
Saffron Rizzo, Head of Talent at RIZZO The Agency, expressed a similar frustration, “A lot of work goes into building someone’s positioning, confidence, brand relationships and commercial value before they become more visible in the market.”
She continued, “Once that success builds, naturally they attract more attention, and that is often when other agencies begin to show interest.”
Charlotte Stavrou has lived that reality herself. She recently watched a creator leave SevenSix after helping build their career from the very beginning.
“Of course it was sad,” she said, “but it wasn’t because they were unhappy. They were looking to pursue opportunities we simply don’t specialise in.”
Rather than viewing that as failure, Stavrou sees it as part of the boutique agency model, “As a boutique agency, we often see ourselves as an incubator. We help talent build foundations, shape their positioning, create strategy and grow their careers.”
It’s an interesting observation.
Perhaps smaller agencies aren’t simply competing with larger agencies. Perhaps they’re increasingly becoming the talent development pipeline for them.
When Does Healthy Recruitment Become Poaching?
This was the question where agency leaders became most animated. Because whilst they largely accepted talent movement, they didn’t always accept the methods used to facilitate it.
Merritt drew a clear distinction, “Healthy recruitment is transparent, respectful and rooted in genuine alignment.”
For her, there is nothing wrong with saying “If you’re ever exploring new representation, we’d love to chat.”
But she believes the line is crossed when agencies begin undermining existing relationships. “Unethical poaching is covert and opportunistic”, she was unwavering in pointing out.
She specifically referenced agencies approaching creators mid-campaign, criticising existing management teams and creating artificial urgency. Her conclusion was perhaps one which was the most forthright; “If you have to destabilise an existing relationship to win the talent, you’re not recruiting, you’re poaching.”
Phoebe Mason, Head of Brand Partnerships at MUSE The Agency in Manchester, takes a particularly strict approach; “If a creator lets us know they are currently under management and in contract we close the conversation and simply wish them well on their future endeavours.”
She also highlighted behaviour she believes has become increasingly common; “We’ve noticed recent examples where larger agencies are actively engaging and commenting on signed creators’ posts.”
Whilst not necessarily unethical in itself, she believes it contributes to an environment where boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred.
Dana Pirkle similarly believes intent matters; “There’s nothing wrong with approaching a creator if you genuinely believe you can provide a better service, stronger opportunities or a better fit for their long-term goals.”
But she was quick to point out; “Where it crosses into unethical territory is when the primary motivation is to damage a competitor rather than help the creator.”
That distinction feels important. Competition isn’t the problem. Motivation is.
The Rise Of Agency Status Symbols
One of the most fascinating themes emerging from contributor responses wasn’t around poaching at all. It was around perception.
Several contributors suggested that agency brands themselves are increasingly becoming status symbols.
Saffron Rizzo believes this is influencing creator behaviour; “Some talents are drawn to where looks good publicly, rather than looking at the actual work being done, the agency’s track record, retention, strategy and whether the relationship is truly right for them long term.”
“Agency reputation has become something of a status symbol.”
The implication is clear. Some creators aren’t necessarily moving because they’re unhappy. They’re moving because another contact email address looks more impressive in their Instagram, TikTok or Youtube bio.
Rizzo also challenged the assumption that bigger agencies automatically provide better representation, “Bigger does not always mean more care, better strategy, or stronger opportunities.”
The Talent Times reached out to a number of larger agencies, but some were either unwilling to comment or did not respond.
But Rizzo’s sentiment was echoed elsewhere.
Several boutique agencies argued that their greatest strength remains personal attention, strategic involvement and genuine partnership. The challenge is that those benefits don’t always appear as glamorous from the outside.
Why Talent Really Leaves
Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of those we asked don’t believe creators leave primarily because they’re being poached. They believe they leave because something wasn’t working.
Communication emerged repeatedly.
Merritt explained, “Creators don’t leave because of one missed email, they leave because of a pattern of feeling unheard or deprioritised.”
She noted that many creators approach Build and Bloom after feeling like they were simply “one of many” at previous agencies.
Dana Pirkle pointed to trust; “When communication breaks down, opportunities are missed, or managers aren’t transparent enough, creators can quickly lose trust in their representation.”
“Trust and communication are the foundation of any successful creator-manager relationship,” she added.
Phoebe Mason believes alignment is often the deciding factor; “Creators want to feel like the agency representing them really understands their direction and where they’re trying to go.”
And Charlotte Stavrou offered another perspective; “In most cases, I don’t think talents leave because of money.”
“They leave because they feel their career has outgrown the support they’re receiving, or because they want access to opportunities their current agency can’t provide.”
That’s an uncomfortable reality for agencies. Because it suggests that in many cases, poaching isn’t the cause. It’s merely the catalyst.
The Industry Needs Standards
If there was one thing almost every contributor agreed on, it was this – The creator economy lacks clear norms around agency transitions.
Mason believes more issues could be resolved if creators simply raised concerns sooner; “Too often in the industry, creators will just spring a notice on their agent without any prior conversation.”
Pirkle agreed; “Creators should give their current agency an opportunity to address concerns before looking elsewhere.”
Merritt proposed an industry-wide principle – “No agency should approach a creator who is currently mid-campaign with another agency.”
And Stavrou perhaps summarised the broader sentiment best; “The goal shouldn’t be preventing movement. It should be ensuring that movement happens in a way that’s respectful to the creator, the outgoing agency and the incoming agency.”
That feels like the real takeaway.
The Verdict
After speaking to agencies across the creator economy, one thing became abundantly clear – Talent poaching isn’t going away.
Most contributors – and almost anyone who works in the industry – has seen it at some point. Many have experienced it. Some believe it’s becoming more common.
But it’s becoming more and more clear that the industry doesn’t actually have a talent movement problem. It has a professionalism problem.
The agencies we spoke to aren’t asking creators to stay forever. They’re not demanding loyalty. They’re not arguing that talent should be prevented from leaving. They’re asking for respect. Respect for existing relationships. Respect for the work that has gone into building careers. Respect for contracts.
And respect for the fact that, behind every creator who has become commercially attractive, there is usually an agency that helped make that happen.
Because if the creator economy truly wants to mature into a world-class professional industry, then perhaps the conversation shouldn’t be about whether talent should move.
It should perhaps be about how we ensure everyone behaves professionally when they do.
