As live events return from the pandemic shutdown, companies involved in face-to-face marketing are reviewing legacy processes, and one of those processes is the ‘review’ that generates the RFP—the request for proposals. Despite years of both sides—clients and suppliers—calling for a less time-consuming process yielding more satisfactory, workable solutions, so far, there has been no substantial change. Moreover, in the exhibit industry, there has long been a backlash against ‘free design’—that is, when there is a request to include design as part of the RFP without any compensation for the creative.
The Data Tells the Story
Let’s look at some data: According to a recent study from Advertiser Perceptions, the 4As, and ANA, the incumbent’s average cost of defending an account is $406,092 if they opt to defend the account, although 25% choose not to because of the cost. Ironically, after all the expense of the process, most marketers (2/3) retain the incumbent. The costs factor hourly costs, disruptions/delays, staffing changes, and external consultants.
The conclusion of this report? “Reviews should be avoided and triggered only as a last resort.” The goal for presenting the data in this report is that both clients and agencies will reassess their reliance on agency reviews and pitches to solve problems that may be inherent in a relationship. Although many of us feel that participation in the RFP process is unavoidable, we also acknowledge that preparing the response is a significant drain on resources and takes, on average, “an entire business quarter.”
The existing process is not especially transparent. Agencies (exhibit houses and others) currently answer a series of questions that appear to be driven by procurement. Questions about warehousing space and transportation, while important, do not address what will ultimately be the relationship between agency and marketer. Hourly rates are misleading since the number of hours worked can’t be predicted. Procurement usually buys commodities, not creative services—so while procurement concerns are legitimate, the search for a partner needs to explore the DNA of both sides. The study found that price is the main driver (62%) in the selection process, followed by creative execution (45%), strategy (36%), and the agency’s reputation (35%).
The Relationship Between Agencies and Marketers
Nowhere in the current RFP process is there a discussion about core values on either side—and how those values mesh. In his recent book, You Get the Agency You Deserve, Jared Belsky suggests beginning with an understanding of the agency leadership. Is the team cohesive, or is it a revolving door? Belsky goes on to describe what we all acknowledge: “Most RFPs focus on skill sets…and that’s a problem because agency-client relationships depend on many other factors that are usually under scrutinized [in the RFP] such as culture, process, ‘DNA,’ transparency, and the actual team the client will work with day-to-day. Also, critical and often overlooked…are qualities like the ability to listen to feedback and take direction.”
As a Marketer, Does Your Current RFP Process Help You Understand Your Partner’s Core Values?
Probably not. And worse is what the 4As have to say about reviews. Matt Kasindorf, senior vice president/business intelligence & insight at the 4A’s, states clearly that “they are expensive, time-consuming…” And don’t forget, inevitably, when you change agencies, there is a period of overlap when both the outcoming and the incoming agencies are being paid.
Can We Replace the Current Review Process?
Belsky advocates a different process, such as a joint problem-solving session, to ascertain how each side approaches a challenge.
4A’s Kasindorf mentions creating an agency/client relationship management program with or without a third-party facilitator. Relationship management is a platform for discussing and building the value the agency brings to the client’s business at every step, helping to identify and review all key aspects of the relationship openly and regularly so both sides can define success, clarify expectations, reveal issues, and optimize the working relationship. Relationship management is all about communication and understanding:
- The client organization and individual clients’ goals and aspirations.
- How to address issues with respect—and get results.
- When and how various individuals prefer to communicate:
- Phone, email, text, video conference, or in-person.
- During office hours or after hours.
- What’s urgent and what isn’t—and the right response and timing for each.
Above all, a relationship management program helps build trust, starting with the pitch and through the new client transitioning and onboarding, the 100-day check-in, and beyond.
The report reminds us ‘this is still a people business. Clients hire people, not agencies. Having a commitment to developing long-term relationships and aligning the right people who complement their counterparts are key to reducing the need for agency reviews.”
A Final Question: How Do You Get to The Point Where You Can Implement a Relationship Management Program?
Do you start with your incumbent? Sometimes reviews are pointless exercises that, as statistics show, culminate in retaining the incumbent. Meeting with the incumbent and introducing a relationships management program as a possibility is a good way to start. You might find everyone around the table is breathing easier.
Do you have an untenable relationship with your incumbent? If so, is there another way to select a new agency than the standard review, one that encompasses, as Belsky says, “terms, culture, process, ‘DNA,’ transparency, and the actual team the client will work with day-to-day?” We’ll address possible modifications to the process in our next post.
Meanwhile, download the following checklist to determine where you currently stand with the incumbent.
