ISBA New Business Survey April/May Research objectives To explore various aspects of the new business process among marketing and procurement professionals.
Presentation on theme: "New pitch processes. 58% of respondents indicated that they thought that there is a need for a new type of pitch process In your opinion do you think."— Presentation transcript:
New pitch processes
58% of respondents indicated that they thought that there is a need for a new type of pitch process In your opinion do you think there is a need for a new type of pitch process on some accounts or types of business? For example for a digital pitch or a pitch for a project?
5There are mixed views on the efficiency of the current way of handling pitches How would you rate the efficiency of the current way of handling pitches?
Although there are more positive views of effectiveness How would you rate the effectiveness of the current way of handling pitches?
Pitch in a day (PIAD)
One route is to do a pitch-in-a-day session. As the name suggests, this is a potential new way of pitching that condenses the pitch process into a single day. Having created a shortlist, it would involve the client briefing each short listed agency in the morning, spending the day with the agency, and then having the agency present its response to the brief at the end of dedicated day with each agency there by condensing the pitch process e.g. if you briefed 3 agencies the pitch process from end to end would take 3 days: Pitch in a day (PIAD)
25% of respondents indicated that they would be interested in the concept of a pitch in a day (PIAD), whilst 50% are not interested Do you feel that this way of pitching has potential for you as a client?
There is interest, but this is tinged with a degree of scepticism about PIAD Focuses the business It would be quick and replicate real life more realistically Full day thinking rather that a few hours ensures focus. Shows they can deliver under pressure....interested, but only for small-scale assignments, and assuming a fair bit of due diligence had been done in advance (e.g. RFI stuff) Willing to explore various approaches. This seems to apply more to discrete projects/executions than broad strategic engagements, but who knows? Happy to try it if it - not sure it will get enough across in a day especially for a major account, but sounds interesting
The scepticism is exacerbated among those who are not interested in the concept I think you can really condense the pitch time depending on what you are doing. However, there are pitfalls to watch out with a brand like Coca-Cola if you make the timings too tight as you end up wasting time for both the agency and yourself. If this is about exciting thinking then yes you can but if you are looking at a deeper understanding of our system and what can and can't be done then you need to give greater time. This could be used if you are looking at talent to respond to communication challenges, rather than specific problem solving. Agency requires greater time to think about the target audience and understand their motivations and barriers. it would lack the rigour and sheer time required to identify who has the most to contribute. If we had done this in our most recent pitch we could have made a catastrophic error, or a basic error.
There are felt to be potential problems with PIAD Reduced quality of proposals This means that the client will have to spend 1 day with each agency which might be difficult as all the same stakeholders needs to be involved in all of the agency pitches. So if you run this kind of pitch with five agencies that is five days out of the office. If MD's are involved this type of pitch seems unfeasible. Tends to lead to strong creative solutions to easy strategic issues. Not good for getting brilliant media solutions, which really do need research that can't be done in one day. They do not have access to other agency resources, also what is good about the current process is that you can brief on an up and coming product, or launch and then actually use the work that is done in the pitch by the winning agency to implement when the contract starts - usually the work done in the pitch process is probably the best work the agency often carries out because it is done under a pitch situation. Condensing this down to a day does not give the agency time to carry out research or make it a " great " piece of work.
There are felt to be potential problems with PIAD Do not think we would see a 'true' picture of the Agencies capability in the 'real' environment X factor at work !! Pitch is not just about the agency presentation it also involves contract negotiations which can be long and protracted. This would have to be done before hand or on the day. Not sure what level of response you would get back by only having a day to respond. How would you monitor an agencies strategic thinking and planning as they would have little time to demonstrate their capabilities. Main drawback is that the agency would not be able to develop and present any creative in such a short period of time which is an important part of the pitch process. Follow up sessions always reveal more and gives the client a chance to re- affirm. Plus not meeting the people who work on the account is also a disadvantage.
42% of respondents agreed that PIAD would give them greater insight into the working practices of agencies Do you feel that PIAD could give clients greater insight into the working practices of agencies, their approach to problem solving and chemistry
This rises to 86% among those expressing interest in the concept
Whilst 32% of respondents feel that PIAD would lead to increased frequency of pitching 30% disagreed Do you feel that using PIAD may actually encourage clients to pitch more regularly?
The two-week pitch
We recognise that some clients need to see a creative component to their pitch. Therefore we have developed the concept of the two- week pitch. It is akin to a creative tissue session where agencies present concepts only. For some clients, what can be seen at this session is a sufficient indicator for a client to appoint an agency, without having to see full blown creative answers. In the interest of both parties this will shorten the time, cost and the process. The two-week pitch
61% of respondents indicated that they were interested in the concept of a two-week pitch, whilst 21% were not interested Do you feel that this way of pitching has potential for you as a client?
There is considerably more positivity regarding the concept of a two-week pitch More practical than PIAD and more likely to bear a more genuine portrayal of the agency's work and methods This feels slightly more in depth than the one dayer and would allow the agency to put in more background work on the pitch. More time to evaluate/test and also answer a lot of the 'non creative' questions from large clients e.g. commercials, contracts, CSR, green issues etc Pitching on concepts is a good idea and one that we currently practice. General consensus is for the idea of reducing the time in process and costs.
But there are some negatives PIAD could work because of the time pressure, this concept just seems like a shorter and less detailed version of a traditional pitch event In an advertising creative pitch would require full blown creative answers we would not make a decision based on concepts. In recent pitches the concepts have looked great however when it came to the full blown creative response we have seen issues that lead to the supplier being declined. We are very risk adverse and would not take this sort of risk. Also, I do not think you could take concepts to research. This may not be such an issue with other areas. Doesn't show understanding of the industry or marketplace Does not enable a thorough evaluation of the Agencies capability, ethos etc.
Whilst 42% of respondents indicated that PIAD or the two-week pitch would not cause them a problem in respect of the final decision process,38% held the opposing view Using either of these methods (PIAD or the two-week pitch) there would not be a polished creative route presented. Would this in any way cause a problem for you in the final decision?
Why lack of creative would present a problem I think it will be difficult to get the right vision across. Still, I think it is a sensible solution to often very onerous pitches. Production is key. How will I know whether an agency (as with individuals) is able to generate ideas but unable to execute effectively - and vice versa? Ultimately we need to be confident of the creative, if the pitch does not give us this then we have wasted our time (and the agencies). For marketing projects creative plays a huge element. without it how can you judge? Our clients are inexperienced in understanding rough work, therefore finished creative is required. Senior management are accustomed to a certain quality of output which may not be possible to deliver in a short timescale. This would require us to change their expectations but is not impossible.
Why lack of creative would not present a problem End result of a campaign/project/execution in my experience is never what was pitched/requested to begin with, so why worry about specific detail when what you're hiring is ability/potential/style/approach We are not necessarily looking for a polished creative route to be presented. More so to get a deep understanding of that Agencies capability, experience, people etc. This all takes more than a day to formulate. Again this works for smaller creative outputs where budget is known but I do not see it as suitable for very large and potentially global pitches. Creative is not always the answer - creative intelligence in more important. Can evaluate creative on a tissue paper - not always needed to have full blown cappa boards etc.... Sometimes the treatment and presentation is to cover the fact that there isn't a unique idea.
40% of respondents indicated that the traditional pitch continues to be the optimum route, whilst 38% disagreed Do you feel that the traditional pitch continues to be the optimum route?
38% of those favouring the traditional pitch indicated that they would be prepared to pay for them, whilst 52% disagreed If yes, would you be prepared to pay?