This is an age-old agency argument.
Clients respond to creative (aka design). Clients ask for creative. So agencies need to pitch creative and win on that creative.
Here are a few holes in that approach:
Without actually engaging with the client and diving deep into their business, it’s not possible to put together a vetted set of goals and strategy to thoroughly inform a creative platform that makes any sense in the marketplace. At best, the agency’s taking an intuitive stab in the dark. So, assuming the client buys in, what’s the chance for a successful outcome (note the word “chance”)?
Perhaps the client directive states they’re not looking for the exact campaign, but “just want to see creative thinking.” In that case, the pitch’s success depends upon the client’s aesthetics, not necessarily that of their market, nor the market’s propensity to act on the campaign regardless of its aesthetic appeal. Is this wise?
Or, assuming the client knows their market, knows what’s needed and will know the creative that works “when they see it,” what value does the agency bring beyond its pencils and paints?
Lastly, is the winning creative going to box you in? This is a real danger when launching into online experiences that take weeks (months?) of UX work and requirements gathering; jump into design too fast and your looking at re-work and lost time, money and tempers.
Here’s an agency challenge:
Add up all the creative (and other) hours that go into pitches, stack them against the accounts lost and won, and factor in whether the bulk of the wins are “good” accounts — the kind that allow your company to bring utmost value to the table, build revenue in the right ways for all parties, and don’t overburden the agency at the expense of other clients and company growth. Is the net positive or negative?
I’m thinking the results weigh against pitching on creative. (Sure, there will be exceptions, but maybe they prove the rule?)
So what should a pitch be based on?
Here are a few thoughts; I’m sure you’ll have more…
- The agency’s ability to demonstrate its market knowledge and insight into the client’s obvious, researched or stated pains
- The agency’s depth of expertise in solving problems like those of the client, illustrated by past successes and backed by facts and figures
- A few “big ideas” that show how the agency thinks about solving these particular problems, not the exact execution of that thinking.
- The assumption that the agency wouldn’t be at the table in the first place if it wasn’t capable of delivering great creative.
- A professional, team-centric and transparent attitude that aligns the agency and client from day one, allowing both parties to do their best work together, for the best possible outcomes.
Just one man’s admittedly biased opinion. Please feel free to argue…
Comments 5
One can’t argue this point (from your article), because it’s so true. But one (how about me) can suggest another view; that is, agencies all copy from each other and regurgitate the same “deep dive” process, USP / brand idea process, blah blah blah. So creative work may be the only way to cut through to the heart of the agency. Creative work may be the only way to determine the agency’s ability to glean insights from the marketplace…how well they present and support their ideas, etc. More than anything, clients are too busy or lazy to evaluate an agency the hard way. If agencies are willing to put on the creative dog and pony, then clients will prefer it. And since we are (for the right opportunity), nothing will change..for now.
Posted 02 Nov 2009 at 11:03 am ¶Excellent points, Art. I’m hoping someone on the client side weighs in. Or maybe someone on the agency side wants to debate whether “all agencies copy from each other?”
Posted 02 Nov 2009 at 11:10 am ¶Art is correct about agencies looking alike, but I don’t think creative necessarily shows “the heart of the agency.” Agencies working in the same categories (B2B, CPG, etc.) will tend to have similar, ’safe’ creative in a pitch lest they scare a prospect away. Instead, what if the agencies come in with concepts or ideas about connecting with the target audience? It could be creative, but it could–and should–include media, events, P.R., social media, viral media, etc. If you DO bring in creative, make it highly conceptual, i.e., don’t actually do the work but rather pitch the concept.
Posted 02 Nov 2009 at 2:33 pm ¶Great post, Rich. I’m in agreement — keep up the good posts. They’re worth reading.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 5:45 pm ¶Rich, an admirable and intelligent stab at the age-old argument. Having been in Bus Dev for global, medium and minor agencies for almost 20 years, I disagree — and I’m in favor of (sometimes, at least) spec creative (which can sometimes be provided for a fee)– here’s why.
When an agency is asked to present their qualifications to a company, what then becomes the single mission of that agency?
To win the business. Period. There is no other mission at hand but to win. They win by winning the trust and confidence of that client in the short time provided.
Few if any clients give a shit whether agencies have principles, especially those which ultimately limit client access to business abilities that serve their needs. They give a shit about results. No lawsuits, but results — based on an increasingly tight ROI lens.
How will you deliver on that mission, effectively and consistently? And; what’s the cost of losing pirtches — and who pays? Or, how can agencies reduce the expense, time and energy of client acqusition costs, and maximize both their portfolio of clients and a better pitch-win-ratio?
Agencies win pitches by clearly, passionaltely and compellingly articulating how they’ll help, define and realize the prospective company’s needs, goals and objectives. Agencies do NOT win by defending their own mighty principles. (“We don’t give our ideas and creative away for free! Harrumph!”) Who cares? Not clients.
What’re the ways and means all agencies have to manifest a win, for which they have full-time staff? A well-orchestrated combination of what clients need and demand every day, but don’t often get: Creative ideas (specific to THEM and their business). Marketing savvy. Media knowledge. Customer insight. And (even more critically) technology interconnectivity and IT backbone.
Leave out creative ideas specific to the company at hand and that agency no longer looks like they value or can produce specific, targeted creative – the very thing they insist they get paid for and argue is critical to success. They then appear to be hedging and defying their own principles.
If agencies insist on ONLY showing ‘work we did for other people’, the very criticism that agencies only swap, regurgitate and steal other people’s ideas and work without their original creative marketing insights suddenly appears suspiciously evident. Then, count on any puffed-up agency staff bios to showcase not your impassioned marketing rock stars but instead a
weary confederacy of pirates who lack bandwidth and brain power for anything new, challenging. Truth revealed.
As in any test situation, it’s important to attempt to understand, as best as possible and in advance, how the client selection committee thinks and what issues weigh most heavily with the members. So to patently argue against and avoid doing spec creative usually reveals generalized weakness and timidness, not strength and boldness of the agency’s idea-making machine.
If I’m seeking a deck-builder to come and give me a quote to build a deck off my house in my yard, and that builder comes excitedly with specific ideas, options, and costs, I’ll be more likely to hire them than the guy who when asked, “what do you think?”, answers: I don’t give ideas and services for free. The hell he doesn’t. We all do. In every successful profession on the planet.
This is the mission: to get hired. To get a long-term contract for supporting mutual business interests, Period, Whatever helps achieve that covalent mission within the given agency’s reach should be orchestrated
Under fire and against relentless competition that are willing and able, rigidly holding to unproven principled arguments fails to achieve consistent results. For agencies and for their clients. And clients are sick of hearing this argument. Ask them.
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 10:21 am ¶Post a Comment