IPA & ISBA New Business Surveys Executive Summary

Research objectives To examine the new business process from both an agency and a client perspective with particular reference to the cost of the pitching process

Research methodology Web-based surveys undertaken on behalf of the IPA and ISBA by Dataalive Ltd Agency survey undertaken in spring 2009 and client survey in spring responses to the agency survey and 58 responses to the client survey

Main findings Client respondents were asked to identify the key elements of the pitch process. These were felt to be: –A Good quality brief with clear objectives and KPIs. Clear and concise requirements and expectations and a clearly defined scope of work –Commercial understanding of the challenge and objectives that goes beyond replaying the brief at the start of the pitch –Stakeholder engagement –A standard process that offers suppliers fair competitive opportunity to win –A solid team performance (from the agency), featuring characters who will ultimately work on the account –Strong project management with clear timelines –Openness and honesty on all sides –A collaborative approach between a client and the agencies involved

Main findings Time taken to pitch –Both clients and agencies regard 6-8 weeks as the optimum time for the pitching process. This allows agencies sufficient tine to: Get a grasp of and reflect upon client business issues Undertake any necessary research Develop a sound strategic direction Produce a quality presentation Pressures to lengthen, or shorten, the pitch process not welcomed by agencies.

Main findings Pitch Costs –Pitching is expensive for both agencies and clients in terms of time spent and physical out-of-pocket costs. –However, widely diverging views on what the actual costs are. Client perceptions of pitch costs are lower than agency perceptions, by a considerable margin –Some clients are prepared to pay for pitching but the majority don’t –Where clients do contribute towards pitch costs the average amount contributed is way short of actual costs

Main findings RFI’s –Often a large number of agencies are asked to take part in them and take up to 7 man days to complete involving staff across the agency. – However, they are seen by clients as an important part of the pitching process as it enables them to assess the capabilities and skills of agencies and to filter accordingly

Main findings Credentials/Chemistry meetings –These are seen as being extremely important by agencies. Indeed agencies regard this element of the pitching process to be as important as the final pitch itself –Where they do take place, agencies feel that they often lack direction and focus Interim/Tissue meetings –Agencies feel that they should be a mandatory part of the pitching process, but a quarter of clients don’t use them –Where they do occur agencies feel that client expectations of what they are for needs to be managed

Main findings Feedback –Seen as vital by agencies and clients expect agencies to ask for it –The vast majority of clients provide feedback, if they are asked to do so The role of procurement –Heavily involved in the pitch process –Work in partnership with marketing and seen by clients as managers of the commercial process, but not the key decision makers

Main findings New pitch processes (asked of clients only) –Just under 60% of clients feel that there is a need for new pitch processes and there are mixed views on the efficiency of existing practice. –Some resistance to the concept of pitch in a day. Rejected by the majority of clients as lacking sufficient rigour (and also likely to be rejected by agencies who are against excessive foreshortening of the pitch process) –Significantly more interest in the concept of a two week pitch (although this is still well below the optimum pitch time frame).This would give a more genuine reflection of agency capability and help to reduce costs