Creative pitching (Part 1!) - Is the pitch process broken or is it just tough?
The pitch process, it's something most people dread, whether client or agency side. Do we need to fundamentally overhaul it, refine it, or kill it entirely? And, when it comes to pitches, what do both sides actually want from the process?
Time is finite and pitching takes away from ‘real’ work.
I’ve worked on both sides of the divide, pitching as part of agency teams, and managing pitches on behalf of clients, and I think that, while the process can be gruelling, it is necessarily thorough. We are talking about a 3-year contract and with calls to increase that to five years, on the basis that it takes time to ‘bed in’ a client and get it ticking. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect the selection of an agency to have a certain amount of rigour to it - you don’t usually marry a one-night stand!
The biggest single problem with pitches is the BAU (business as usual) demands for client and agency teams - both will be already fully committed to ongoing projects, existing client work etc. there are no teams waiting around for a pitch bell to be rung - we don’t have that fat in the system. Agency management is just one component of a client's job to begin with, so every pitch puts pressure on all teams engaging in the process.
For agencies, a pitch is certainly not just an item on the traffic sheet - another job or project. With existing clients, you have knowledge, you're already ‘in’ the category, you understand the business and that can help you solve problems and see opportunities for your clients. In a pitch situation you need to travel a steep category and client learning curve first, so you can impress in the initial client meeting just to get short-listed, then use that understanding to address the client challenge for pitch. It requires time, which is already scarce. That's why the pitch process itself actually delivers time to acquire and apply the knowledge to address the client challenges and build the foundations of a relationship. I do think some processes can be over-engineered, there isn't a ‘one size fits all’ and each pitch requires right-sizing and respect.
Enough of the moaning, let’s instead get into the process and understand what we’d like to lose, change or even (deep breath here) add.
Clients and agencies value different parts of the process.
With the benefit of experience on both sides of the aisle, I’ve seen that different parties get value from different aspects of the pitch. This means that what, for example, the agency might like to lose from the pitch process, the client might find really valuable.
The stakes are high for the client, a decision to move their business or partnership with an agency is a big one, the emotional side of this can't be ignored and chemistry is not the sole preserve of the chemistry meeting. Through the process clients are looking to connect with the agency team and this is a lot easier if the agency team is small and consistent. Clients are looking to build trust and confidence and hope the team has a view of what’s possible and where they can have a positive effect - the worst thing an agency can do is exactly what they think the client wants, rather than what they need. What the client actually wants is an expert partner they can trust to lead and advise! So, to become a partner you need to behave like one. For a client who is making a substantial investment, they need to see beyond the wooing and into the real potential relationship.
Balancing the roles of marketing and procurement teams
It's important for procurement to play a role in the pitch process - they're specialists in their field and have a helpful role to play, but are not experts in marketing and advertising, and because agency expertise is complex and intangible and the solutions involve multi-disciplinary teams delivering tailored solutions, cost - while an important filter - should not be the dominant factor. We need to be very fair to the agencies and, in my experience, clients are driving this themselves, wanting to limit the burden of the process and be fair in terms of remuneration.!
Our experience with procurement teams has , without exception, been positive. They have been open to advice and happy to let us lead as long as we are demonstrating due process and transparency. They're looking for the most qualified, best fit at a fair price, not the least qualified at a low price.
Do we really need all those stages?
The chemistry meeting is critical for the agency and needs to be set up for ‘chemistry’. For the love of advertising, limit or ditch the presentation and get chatting. And, while you're at it bin heavy pre-reads too- there is not time. I genuinely think there are extra points to be had for brevity and relevance.
Think carefully about the RFP, the brief, and tasks.
The pitch brief is important, not just a stage in the process, but it sets up expectations - it shouldn't ask for the kitchen sink.
Agencies should be able to push back on it or say it's too much or too far, without thinking that they'll be penalised for being honest.
This is an important job for the pitch consultant, the writing of a clear brief.
At Pt78 we often ask for strategy/direction and then look for an ‘outline only’ response, or we may ask for limited assets to be developed rather than needing to see every tiny piece of social. Spec creative developed without the client in a pitch process is rarely used (only 25%) and so maybe we would be better served getting a sense of how the agency is thinking about creative rather than seeing fully worked up campaigns? Maybe we can look at the previous work of the agency and, separately, their people, to see what they can do for business. In my view talent flows through the agency landscape like a fast-moving river and so it's important to know, not just what agency delivered great work, but what people did the work.
The Q&A is important for the participating agencies, an opportunity to get some clarity before they start, but the client is not looking for a laundry list of questions as proof of interest. It takes a lot of time for the client to answer questions from all the agencies involved. I also think agencies should be helped to win the pitch - if they have a question, it should be answered, even beyond Q&A.
And then onto the tissue meeting - this is by far my favourite meeting in the process, and I think the most important meeting for agencies and clients alike. Clients get a look ‘under the bonnet’ of how an agency works and agencies get useful information that can help them hone their response. I think even a bad tissue meeting is a gift because the agency gets full feedback and clear direction (if it is heard). I'm constantly surprised at the client's evolving perception of an agency through a pitch process - a number of times the agency that has had a bad experience at the tissue meeting has gone on to win the business. Without a tissue meeting the agency only has one shot at getting it right and it all hangs on the final pitch- putting all the chips on black.
It's important to remember that a tissue meeting for a client is certainly interesting but it's also gruelling - it demands attention and response. It requires the client to absorb and understand a couple of weeks’ worth of thinking - and they are under pressure, in front of people they don’t know well (and their own team), to guide the agency forward and they do it on repeat, often with a couple of meetings in one day!
This is also why I think the workshop alternative is a bad idea - it puts huge pressure on both the client and the agency team - to run a false process that would never be replicated in a real-world relationship. A workshop without all the information required can be exposing rather than beneficial. The client has to engage in three of them and so, God help the last agency.
I think maybe a new approach to consider might be working collaboratively with a client to answer a brief - in this day and age with remote working and Teams, Google Meets and Zoom (lol) it might be a better and more time efficient approach- chemistry meeting, brief in, two 40-minute one-to-one meetings to work together and then a pitch? I think even though the client is committing to six short meetings instead of three long ones, where they are on the spot - it will ultimately save time, deliver insight, and identify a connection. Starters for ten.
Then onto the final pitch meeting where the stakes are high for everyone. The client may be bringing an MD or CMO and, as such, needs to have delivered good answers. Their business success is linked to getting a great and effective agency partner. The pitch is an adrenalin fuelled, galvanising, agency team experience at its best and it is the agency on show - it is full of emotion for all parties, because it's the end point and there is a weight to it.
So, we can tweak around the edges of it, or we can re-engineer it - but first let’s really think about what is not working and for who. I think IAPI are correct to call out that the process needs to change or evolve, but I do think a pitch is tough for both client and agency, not just agency teams - there is pressure, there is BAU and there is a requirement for a great outcome.
And what gets you there are two things - rightsizing and respect.