A shared production arrangement needs a rule for competing requests. Without one, the department that contacts the producer most insistently can displace an episode that the organisation considers more important. Decide how scarce broadcast windows will be allocated before several teams expect the same slot.
The production supplier should not have to infer corporate priorities from job titles. Give the supplier a single allocation route, while leaving the business decision with an authorised internal owner. Departments can still discuss feasibility directly; a feasibility conversation should not quietly become a confirmed claim on shared capacity.
Use criteria tied to the event
Useful priority questions include whether the date can move, whether invited external contributors have confirmed, what audience commitment already exists and what happens if the broadcast is deferred. A recurring internal briefing may be important but movable. A customer panel may involve scarce guest availability. Neither category should automatically win every conflict.
Record which requests are complete enough to compare. A vague placeholder should not necessarily outrank a fully approved event simply because it arrived first. Equally, the buyer should not penalise a necessary confidential briefing because the detailed subject cannot yet be circulated widely. Provide an appropriate limited-information approval route for that situation.
Decide who may approve an exception and what evidence they must consider. Exceptions will be easier to understand when the displaced work and the consequences are visible. The supplier needs the final instruction, not access to every internal disagreement.
Protect the work already committed
Once a slot is confirmed, make the consequences of reassignment explicit. The affected programme owner may need to change guest arrangements, audience notices or preparation plans. A priority rule that considers only the incoming event understates the cost of moving the existing one.
Offer alternatives where the production team considers them feasible. A different day, reduced format or separately commissioned resource may preserve both objectives. Do not assume that adding a second broadcast is merely a calendar edit. Ask for a defined proposal before promising the alternative to stakeholders.
Keep the allocation decision separate from departmental funding. The team with available budget does not necessarily own the organisation's highest priority event. If funding affects the decision, make that criterion explicit rather than allowing a purchasing instruction to bypass the programme allocation process.
A hypothetical allocation conflict
Two business units request the same morning. One has a regular staff update; the other has confirmed customer participants travelling between commitments. The internal programme owner applies the agreed criteria and asks whether the staff update can move. It can, but its invitation has already been distributed. The decision therefore includes an owner for notifying staff and a revised preparation schedule, rather than simply handing the slot to the customer team.
Practise with a real conflict scenario
Before launching the shared arrangement, test the rule against two plausible overlapping requests. Ask who decides, which information they need and what the supplier should do while the decision is pending. Acceptance means that an unfamiliar request can receive a reasoned, recorded answer without forcing the producer to adjudicate the organisation's priorities. Keep that answer attached to the schedule so later changes remain understandable.
Discuss suitability
Contact Live Images to discuss the proposed broadcast, audience and delivery requirements. Confirm suitability, scope and availability for the specific brief.
Editorial note
Original commissioning guidance prepared with AI assistance. Hypothetical examples are invented, not Live Images projects. This unpublished resource makes no service, legal or performance guarantee.