Rethinking Agency Pitches: Is Due Diligence More Important Than the Process?

Recent debate over so-called ‘pitchless CEO handshake’ deals has reignited questions about how brands should select their agency partners, and whether traditional competitive pitches are always the most effective approach.

Comments from WPP chief executive Cindy Rose, questioning the rigour of agency appointments made without a competitive pitch, have sparked industry discussion.  Rose argues that major agency appointments demand careful consideration and proper due diligence.  Publicis Groupe on the other hand maintains that clients are increasingly choosing more focused, in-depth evaluations of agency talent, technology and capabilities over lengthy and costly competitive pitches.

For our Co-Founder and Managing Partner – Lucinda Peniston-Baines – the debate highlights an important distinction between the pitch process itself and the rigour required to make the right appointment.

CEO-level influence on major agency decisions is nothing new, and competitive pitches continue to play a valuable role, particularly where creativity, human-led strategy and cultural fit are central to a successful partnership.

However, as technology, data and tools become increasingly important to marketing, the traditional pitch process may not always be the most appropriate route. In these circumstances, a more focused evaluation of a potential partner, involving rigorous testing of capabilities and solutions, can offer a more effective way forward.

The Observatory International has supported several such ‘closed pitches’, helping clients navigate alternative approaches while maintaining independent oversight and robust evaluation.

The critical distinction is that bypassing a competitive pitch should never mean bypassing due diligence.

Read the original article cvf in Campaign.