Casting before roster

Two roles, stated plainly

Haunted does two jobs. As an agent, we exclusively represent 45 creators: we commit on their behalf and are accountable for delivery. As an adviser, an advertiser or a publisher entrusts us with a campaign, and our job is to recommend the right creators, ours or not. In every conversation, we say in which capacity we are speaking.

Two rules keep those roles apart. We never claim a talent is exclusive when they are not: advertisers talk to each other, and a false claim of exclusivity gets around fast. And we do not act as an intermediary without adding real value.

As an adviser, casting starts from the campaign

When an advertiser entrusts us with a whole campaign, it often calls for profiles we do not represent. We then act on the brand’s behalf: we cast those creators and negotiate with their agents, stating clearly who represents whom. The test is the same as for our own roster: the creator’s legitimacy with the community the campaign is aimed at. When a creator on our roster does not fit the product, we advise against them and look for the right profile elsewhere.

We also work, campaign after campaign, with a few creators on a non-exclusive basis: we list them separately, on the Join us page, and never as exclusive.

What we refuse: one intermediary too many

According to a Kolsquare study published in late 2025 (600 brands and agencies, 12 countries), the top difficulty cited in France (37%) is agents who position themselves as the sole intermediary between talent and advertiser. The criticism is fair when the intermediary merely relays messages.

We hold ourselves to the same test. On a creator we do not manage, we only have a place if we bring something: a line-up calibrated on audience data, a brief reworked for the French audience, and the contract, approvals and reporting carried for the whole campaign. If a brand is only looking for one creator we do not manage, and we have nothing to add, we tell it who represents them.

On our roster, exclusivity is a commitment

For our 45 creators, we are the single point of contact the study describes. The criticism no longer holds when the agent can commit the creator and is accountable for delivery: one contact who knows the creator’s calendar, current commitments and limits; messages approved before publication by someone who knows how they speak; and someone who answers for approval, publication and the 30-day report.

Exclusivity is only defensible if the creator chooses it. We would rather not sign a creator than sign one who only half believes in it. They remain free to turn down a collaboration that does not suit them, and we turn down on their behalf those that would damage their reputation.

What the 2023 law says

The French law of 9 June 2023 does not require exclusivity. It defines the activity of influencer agent, requires agents to defend the interests of the creators they represent and to avoid conflicts of interest (article 7). It also requires a written contract between the influencer and the advertiser, or between the influencer and their agent, once the payments and benefits in kind granted within a year by a single advertiser, for the same promotional purpose, reach €1,000 excluding tax (a threshold set by decree, in force since 1 January 2026). A clear mandate protects the creator, the advertiser and the agent.