Anyone who knows me knows that I could talk about procurement practices even under water. It’s broken, yes, but it’s also fixable – and it’s moving in the right direction. In conversations between clients, procurement teams and agencies, there’s a general acknowledgement that procurement – in its current state – is not working for any of us. But there’s also a willingness to improve it.
My optimism that it can be fixed started during a conversation with a friend’s mum. She worked in procurement. I asked her what was broken and why it needed to be so difficult.
Her answer? “Everything.”
Knowing that it isn’t only agency side that struggles with procurement lit a match for me. Nerdily, we spent the next hour designing from scratch. If we were going to build a system that actually worked for everyone in the process, while still upholding the core principles that procurement is meant to serve, what would it look like?
I’ve been asking that question ever since.
What I love about the process
At its best, a pitch or tender process is genuinely exciting. You’re standing against your peers, solving a real client challenge and the best thinking wins. There’s something clarifying, enticing and challenging about that.
You understand the client’s world, work within the parameters they’ve set, and figure out how marketing and communications can move the needle on their biggest challenges for their entire business. Done well, it’s intellectually rigorous and honest. That’s the version worth fighting for.
What’s actually happening in procurement
The version we mostly live with is something else entirely.
You rarely get the full reveal of the actual problem until you’re on the kick-off call. Clients are writing briefs that describe symptoms, not the underlying issue. By the time you’ve invested weeks in a response, you realise that you’re working with incomplete information.
The evaluators themselves are often not trained in the procurement process enough to know the importance or value of tailoring the scorecard. Passing an agency through that process can mean committing to a three-year relationship with a partner that might not be the most suitable for the problems that brands are trying to solve. The stakes are high. The rigour, often, is not.
Then there’s the list. More than six agencies invited to tender. I’ve seen twelve. Sometimes even more. This tells me: either clients don’t actually know what they want or they don’t trust themselves to shortlist. Neither is a good sign. This results in agencies spending enormous non-billable hours on a long-shot and clients drowning in proposals that are impossible to meaningfully compare.
And then comes the budget. Why is it a mystery? I genuinely want someone to explain that logic to me. The thinking seems to be that withholding budget information will reveal who offers the best value. What it actually reveals is who is best at guessing.
It produces wildly incomparable proposals, forces agencies to hedge and adds weeks to a commercial negotiation that didn’t need to happen. Sharing the budget doesn’t remove negotiating power. It sharpens the question you’re actually trying to answer: which agency can deliver the most value within this envelope?
What good procurement looks like
The fix isn’t complicated. It requires a slight change in mindset. Treat procurement as the beginning of the relationship, not an obstacle or precursor to it.
Start with a chemistry call. Then, share a short brief, include the challenge, state what you’re trying to achieve and offer a rough scope. Meet with a broad list of agencies to gauge experience and cultural fit. Keep it human and honest. Then shortlist to a maximum of six. If you can’t get to down to six, you haven’t done enough homework.
Before you issue the request for proposal (RFP), run a request for information (RFI). Ask for information that will make the brief better. You’ll write a sharper document and agencies will have a fairer shot at answering the right question.
Share the budget. If you would like agencies to come in under your budget, add a qualifying criteria calling for agencies to prove what scope they can deliver for 20 per cent less than the actual budget. What you want to know is which agency delivers the most value. Give them the information they need to show you that.
Issue the RFP with a specific deadline and a clear position on whether extensions will be considered. Ambiguity here costs everyone time.
One week after issuing the RFP, hold a one-on-one briefing session with each agency. Give them the room to ask the questions that sharpen their response and offer their best consultation. The answers will make proposals better.
Review the proposals before the meeting. Ask each agency to present on a specific focus area.
The point
Run the procurement process the way you intend to run the ongoing relationship. If you want a consultative partner who thinks hard about your business, consult them during process. If you want rigorous, accountable commercial thinking, model that into the procurement process.
The agencies showing up to your pitch are auditioning for the right to solve your hardest problems. Give them what they need to show you what they’re capable of.
Let’s fix it in partnership with each other.
By Kate Midttun, CEO, Acorn Strategy.
