How safe are creative ideas in Singapore’s pitch culture?

Singapore’s creative industry is finding itself in the middle of an uncomfortable conversation around pitch culture, idea ownership and where inspiration crosses the line into imitation.

The discussion gained traction after VJ Anand, founder of creative shop Ballsy, called out Pizza Hut Singapore over its recent “OG of good times” campaign, alleging similarities to a concept his agency had pitched earlier this year. To which, Pizza Hut said the “OG” theme surfaced across concepts the brand received – which was not surprising given “OG” had already been incorporated as part of its creative approach since March 2024.

Shortly after, another Singapore-based creative studio also came forward with a similar experience with an unnamed client. In a statement on social media, branding studio Roots alleged that a global financial institution had launched an identity refresh for one of its public programmes, that closely resembled one of the concepts the studio had presented during a paid tender process, including face-to-face presentations where the team was walked through the proposals in detail. 

The post said the pitch fee was only paid after "chasing" the client and clarified to MARKETING-INTERACTIVE that the payment was "a token fee for participation and submission of concepts” rather than the use of them.

Don't miss: UNIQLO 'Cai fan' keychain kerfuffle: Where does inspiration end and imitation begin?

In conversation with MARKETING-INTERACTIVE, Jonathan Yuen, founder and creative director of Roots, said the studio was unable to share further details of the case due to an NDA signed prior to the tender. He explained that while such agreements are common in large organisations, they left the studio unable to publicly address the matter. Moreover, there was no protection for the ideas submitted during the pitch.

He added that the experience has prompted the studio to be more cautious moving forward, including pushing for mutual NDAs and clearer protections around intellectual property and proposal use in future tenders.

While both cases differ in circumstance, they have reignited longstanding industry frustrations around speculative work, blurred creative boundaries and the power imbalance smaller agencies often face during pitch processes.

Protecting the rice bowl

For agency leaders, the recent issues are not isolated incidents, or one offs. On conditions of anonymity, some say idea reuse, speculative pitching and blurred creative ownership have quietly become accepted realities within parts of the industry.

According to Fiona Bartholomeusz, managing director of creative agency formul8, instances of uncredited idea reuse happen “more often than it’s called out”.

“Usually it’s ‘tweaks’ to a concept, idea or name that originated with one agency and then dispensed to another ‘less expensive’ one to execute,” she said.

Bartholomeusz added that agencies are mostly reluctant to publicly challenge clients due to the small and interconnected nature of Singapore’s advertising industry. “The reality is…the Singapore ad industry is a small community and clients have long memories," she said, adding:

Most agencies need to protect their rice bowl and it’s just not worth the grief.

Even when similarities are obvious, she argued that brands are unlikely to openly acknowledge wrongdoing, often framing overlaps as coincidence or parallel thinking. Bartholomeusz also pointed to what she described as “dud pitches”, where agencies are given extremely tight timelines to develop extensive campaign proposals, despite suspicions that another agency may already have an inside track.

“How can [clients] expect a response from agencies in less than a week for a global through-the-line campaign, complete with data and research and fully fleshed-out concepts?” she said.

While she acknowledged that enforcing punitive measures may be difficult in Singapore, Bartholomeusz said the industry ultimately comes down to ethics and professionalism across both clients and agencies.

Still, she said it was “brave and heartening” to see agencies publicly speaking up, adding that she hopes it encourages greater accountability around creative ownership and originality.

Where inspiration ends and accountability begins

Not everyone, however, believes such situations are always clear-cut. According to Marcus Chew, former group chief marketing officer at Lazada Group, ideas rarely emerge in complete isolation, with creative work often shaped by existing cultural references, trends, past campaigns and even subconscious exposure to similar executions.

“Unless something is almost identical in execution, messaging, structure, or distinctive creative assets, it becomes very difficult to definitively claim ownership of a broad concept or direction,” he said.

Chew likened the issue to intellectual property law, where inspiration and overlap can exist, but proving deliberate replication is significantly more complex unless there is clear evidence of direct copying. Still, he stressed that beyond legal considerations, the issue ultimately comes down to professional ethics and client responsibility.

“The client is the only party exposed to all the pitches and ideas presented across agencies,” he said, adding that brands should never pass an idea from one agency to another for execution without permission or compensation.

In instances where a client genuinely wishes to move forward with an idea originated by another agency, Chew said there should at minimum be transparency and fair compensation for the originating agency’s strategic and creative contribution.

“Otherwise, it risks damaging trust across the broader agency-client ecosystem,” he added.

To minimise unintentional overlap, Chew said brands should implement stronger governance during pitch processes, including clearer documentation of concepts presented, tighter confidentiality practices and limiting unnecessary pitch rounds.

Ultimately, trust and ethical conduct matter as much as legal ownership in the creative industry.

Pitch culture’s uncomfortable truth

Taking a broader industry view, Goh Shufen, co-founder of R3 and APAC president of MediaSense, said one of the biggest challenges lies in defining what truly constitutes an “original” idea in the first place.

“Does the fact that more than one agency presented the same idea or strategic route make it less original or more affirmative?” she questioned. From a consultancy perspective, Goh argued that project-based pitching is often not an efficient use of time, resources or reputation for either clients or agencies. She said: 

For agencies who choose to pitch, they should go in with eyes wide open on the risk of ideas being stolen.

She also noted that in some cases, pitches are used specifically to select an idea rather than a long-term agency partner. In such scenarios, she said agencies should be fairly compensated for their pitch work, with upfront agreements in place outlining fees should a client choose to adopt any of the submitted ideas.

“Everything should be transparent, rigorous and legally binding, to protect both sides,” she said.

At the same time, she cautioned that brands running project-based pitches also face growing reputational risks if they are perceived to have appropriated agency ideas.

“The risk of being accused of stealing ideas is real, and the potential reputation impact at corporate and personal level is real,” she said.

According to Goh, strong brand-building work rarely comes from short-term project relationships, adding that consistently “nailing the brief first time and every time is as elusive as hitting 4D”.

Related articles: 
When silence follows the PR pitch, PR pros in Malaysia call for an end to 'ghosting'     
The pitch imperfect: Why client feedback is the missing note  
The dos and don't's: Agency heads spill the tea on bad pitching etiquette