Production requests

Asking a judge to work in a particular setting, wear something specific, or use a prop is a normal custom request, and it is treated as ordinary as any other line in a brief - provided it is asked, not assumed.

Frame it as a question

The etiquette here is small but consistent: production requests go in as "would you be able to..." rather than as instructions. "Would you be willing to do this one holding a particular object" or "is a specific setting something you'd do" both leave room for the judge to say no, adjust the ask, or fold it into a quote as written. A brief that states a setting or outfit as a given, with no room for the judge to decline it, reads as an instruction rather than a request, and that is the wrong register for a professional exchange regardless of what register the clip itself is in.

This sits alongside the general rule that a brief should give direction rather than a script: a setting or outfit is one production element among several, and stating it plainly as an ask, then letting the judge decide how to realise it, is what keeps the request in the judge's craft rather than turning them into someone executing your storyboard.

Expect it to move the price

Production elements are not free, and a request that adds one should not be surprised when the quote reflects it. A setting change, a prop, or specific wardrobe usually means setup time the straightforward version of a clip does not need, and length and complexity already drive most of what a judge charges; adding a production requirement is adding complexity even when it does not add minutes. Unpaid preparation already weighs heavily in platform work: the ILO's 2021 World Employment and Social Outlook found workers on online web-based platforms earned on average US$4.90 an hour, falling to US$3.40 once unpaid time was counted. Asking the question rather than assuming the answer also protects the price conversation: a judge who is asked first can fold the element into a single quote, while one who discovers it mid-brief is more likely to treat it as scope creep.

A no is a complete answer

Not every judge stocks props, has access to a particular setting, or wants to build wardrobe into their work, and a decline on any of these is not a comment on the request itself. Judges decline work for boundary, workload, and fit reasons all the time, and a production element that simply is not something a given judge does falls squarely into fit. The correct response to a no here is the same as anywhere else: accept it, or ask whether a simpler version without the element works instead.

Keep the ask proportionate to the request

A single prop or one outfit choice is a small production ask that most judges who take custom work will happily quote against. A whole scene with multiple wardrobe changes, several props, and a specific setting starts to look less like a detail on a review and more like a short production in its own right, and it is worth being honest with yourself about which one you are actually asking for. The etiquette does not change between the two, but the second kind deserves more room in the brief to describe clearly, and a longer wait for the quote while the judge works out what it actually takes to deliver.

If the request is elaborate enough that it reads like a full scenario rather than a straight review with one production element, treat it as a custom scenario from the start rather than bolting production asks onto a request framed as something simpler. That framing alone tends to produce a more accurate quote and a judge who is prepared for the actual scope of what they agreed to.

Where this is not the point

None of this is about appearance in the sense of choosing a judge because of how they look; that is a different and worse way to pick who to commission, covered separately, choosing a judge by register rather than looks is the more reliable method regardless of whether production elements are involved. A setting or outfit request is about the content of the clip, not about casting, and treating it otherwise tends to produce disappointing briefs on both fronts.

This kind of custom element has no equivalent on the automated side of the market at all: a scoring tool works from what is uploaded and nothing else, with no setting, wardrobe, or prop to request in the first place, which is one of the clearer ways the two options diverge in practice rather than in theory. If what actually matters to you is a number rather than a scene, a measurement taken with a standard method answers that more directly than any production request could, and an automated tool's fixed-price model means there is no quote to negotiate around a request like this at all. For the wider comparison between the two routes, Rate Cock has written it up directly.