What's the value of an editor? Is it creative vision or the ability to push the right buttons? How do you quantify something as unquantifiable as creativity? And, if you could save some money by bringing certain services under your control, would you? What if you could profit from it?

These are just some of the questions facing the editorial world as the growing trend on the part of agencies to cut spots in-house has some people questioning the process as a commodification of creativity, while others tout it as a boon to overworked creatives and agency bottom lines. It's a trend that has prompted the Association of Independent Creative Editors (AICE) to release a whitepaper on the topic.

The paper, says AICE president Lisa Hinman, who's also the president of San Francisco-based Phoenix Edit, is a response on behalf of its members to the "indicators of a continuing increase in the percentage of commercials that advertising agencies are editing in-house". The study (which was released in late March and was unavailable as of press time), addresses the likelihood the trend will continue, the risks and benefits of this shift, and the value added by independent versus staff editors.

That agencies have in-house editorial facilities is certainly not news. Fallon, Minneapolis founded Assembly Line in 1995, while others such as TBWA\Chiat\Day, LA (Venice Beach Editorial), JWT, New York (JWTwo) and Wieden + Kennedy, Portland (Joint) have long been hip to the benefits of having an in-house editorial facility. Aside from furnishing agencies with the ability to cut pitch presentations, test spots and internal communications as well as dubbing capabilities, in-house editorial provides a robust profit center in a climate where agencies are pressured to generate more revenue. And very few in the industry argue the validity or logic behind such facilities.

What has changed is the number of broadcast spots that are being handled internally, and that's raising concern among many independent editorial houses that count agencies, with whom they must now compete, as their clients.

Michael Aaron, supervising editorial producer at Fallon's Assembly Line, and also founder of the Association of Agency Creative Editors (AACE), says the upswing in jobs staying at agencies "evolved out of a need to have creatives in-house, in closer proximity to creative directors, and an opportunity when budgets were restricted."

While Assembly Line does a substantial amount of on-air work, including big-budget award-winning spots, Aaron says at Fallon, editors for jobs are selected based on the project's needs, not on proximity.

In New York, Berlin Cameron United operates a four-year-old, three-room facility called Day for Night. Director of broadcast/partner Dane Johnson says the agency does a "serious amount of on-air work", partly to amp up the bottom line of the agency, also to maintain control. "We're big believers in being able to shape our creative and stay involved as much as we can. We've made a conscious decision to keep a fair amount of work in-house."

For others, like Miami's Crispin Porter + Bogusky, in-house post-production means more flexibility. Vanguards of all things new and innovative, CP+B regularly creates non-TV content. "If you look at the way we tackle campaigns, you have all these different facets - TV, web content, DVDs. It allows us to do stuff that we wouldn't otherwise be able to do and control cost, like when there's no specified budget for something," says director of integrated production Rupert Samuel, noting the agency's post department includes people competent in a variety of tasks from shooting to visual effects and editing.

McCann Erickson head of broadcast Peter Friedman says that while the agency's had an editorial department for some time, he's in the process of developing a new creative editorial property that would function as an off-site stand-alone company, and would emulate the level of service of its independent counterparts. The in-house arm is a major profit center for the agency and, says Friedman, it allows McCann to have more control and offer clients discounts on services. The move to do more broadcast work is to "capture revenue and compete on the open market."

But he says he isn't trying to put anyone else out of business: "I've got 50 producers who do 50 jobs a month. If I could get 10% of that work, then I'd be happy," he says, adding, "agencies are so strapped for time and so overworked that you can't sit down in an editorial facility any more. If I can have a creative run down and check in on work, it will increase productivity, which is almost as important as revenue."

Speaking of revenue, the edge agency-owned editorial shops have is the ability to "amortize costs over a larger group of individuals", according to Aaron. Or as Friedman puts it, "We don't have to worry about keeping the lights on."

This is scary stuff for the independent editorial world. While people maintain there's no pressure for creatives to use in-house arms, given the upper hand agencies possess in terms of potential cost benefit and the sheer convenience of walking down the hall, the pressure may be hegemonic.

But these facilities aren't a perfect beast. At present, the single biggest hurdle to in-house facilities is attracting top-level editors.

"Recruitment is one of our biggest issues", admits Assembly Line's Aaron. "Whenever someone comes into an environment with a finite amount of clients, your creative opportunities are whatever comes from the agency," he says, admitting that staff positions are often filled by junior editors. Alternatively, he says the company will host outside editors if a director or creative team prefers to work with that individual, but need the process to be close at hand.