WHAT WE DO

WHO WE ARE

News

Careers

Why We Are Different

HOW WE THINK

B2B Insights Blog

B2B Insights E-news

CONTACT US

(717) 393-3831
Visit Us
40 N. Christian St.
Lancaster, PA 17602
Directions

Subscribe to E-news
B2B Insights

B2B Insights Blog

Did you know? 5 assumptions that can ruin your mobile design.

Lance Baird

Jan 10, 2013

6 Comments

A Modest Proposal for the B2B RFP

CATEGORY: STRATEGY

Having been in the game for over ten years now, nearly six of them with Godfrey, I know a thing or two about responding to RFPs. Or RFQs. Or RFIs. Or RFwhatevers. Point is, I’ve witnessed my fair share of documents submitted by B2B marketers who wish to work with a new agency in some capacity. While I’m not the biggest fan, I at least understand and can appreciate its purpose – to provide some level of standardization in an otherwise frenzied evaluation process, thus making it easier for clients to compare potential agencies apples-to-apples.

But let’s set the record straight. Yes, we are in it for the long-term, too, despite what others may tell you:

“Part of the problem with today’s commonly practiced agency search process is that agencies and marketers have different objectives from the get-go. Marketers are looking for a long-term relationship with an agency. Agencies, on the other hand, are more mercenary; initially, they are looking for a transaction, not a deep relationship. They are simply looking to win the pitch.”

With all due respect to the author and his credentials, this thinking is profoundly incorrect. This isn’t The Bachelorette. Agencies who move forward to the next round aren’t given a rose, and our motivation isn’t “simply… to win.” Talk to any of the clients we’ve been fortunate to do business with for years, and they’ll tell you if we were only “in it to win it.”

The main issue with an RFP process does not lie in “differing objectives” between client and agency either; it lies in a process that usually measures the wrong things. Receiving a 40-page proposal response, for example, ultimately tells you one thing – agencies know how to write really good proposals. That assumes, of course, the entire piece is read from cover-to-cover, too.

Instead of relying on a system that’s largely ineffective, I would encourage B2B marketers to submit a small business assignment to agencies as a healthy alternative. Pick something small for us to focus our time and attention. Seek assistance for something you’re genuinely facing right now. Clients will not only receive helpful ideas in doing so, they will also see how an agency applies their industry expertise, knowledge of the audience and process to solve complex problems. And isn’t that ultimately the point?

permalink | TAGS:

B2B Audience

Comments

We reserve the right to remove any comments which are obscene, offensive or otherwise deemed inappropriate for this site. HTML will be removed from comments. Please see our Guidelines for more information.

POST COMMENT

January 10, 2013 (11:52 AM EST)

Chris Knopf, CEO, Mintz & Hoke writes:

I agree with Lance in every way. To say that agencies aren't looking for a long term relationship betrays an utter lack of knowledge of basic agency economics. Long term relationships are not only more satisfying in terms of creative work and collaborative strategic planning, they're more profitable, since there's no learning curve, work flow is efficient, the agency is more likely to be paid for counsel and idea generation - higher value work. These things are rarely achievable in the first year, maybe not even in the second. It takes time. Agencies that followed the path being described by the writer wouldn't last a year.
January 10, 2013 (12:04 PM EST)

Patrick Scullin writes:

Lance, this is so true. Whoever wrote that agencies just the win is a total lunkhead. Agencies want lasting relationships for the simple reason of capitalism-- it's good to have a steady stream of revenue from strong relationships. The RFP process usually indicates clients who don't know what the hell they are looking for, so they do cattle calls.

The best way to determine if a service organization is good for you is like you state-- give them a small project and let them prove themselves.
January 10, 2013 (12:19 PM EST)

Allen Clements, Marketing Dir. Second Fiction writes:

Your conclusion is a solution that is obviously best for both parties. The "song and dance," as agencies often call it, is something I've struggled with for a long time from a perspective of general morality when I'm on the buying side and often frustration from the pitching side. Great work!
January 10, 2013 (9:42 PM EST)

Jerry Gennaria writes:

Couldn't agree more. Having spent nearly 15 years with agencies and having been involved in countless RFPs, I know for a fact that regardless of the agency I've worked for our goal has always been a long-term relationship. I suspect that it's no different for most agencies...after all, it is a costly process to respond to RFPs, one that only really pays off when it results in a long-term relationship.
January 16, 2013 (10:18 AM EST)

Bob Sanders writes:

Not that I need to defend Avi, who wrote "initially, they are looking for a transaction, not a deep relationship. They are simply looking to win the pitch" but I will...

I feel you're raising a bit of a straw man argument. The key word in his argument is initially.

I've worked with literally thousands of marketing firms of all shapes and sizes, and of course they are ALL looking for a long-term relationship. That's a given!

But "initially" when looking at any RFP, or any new business opportunity, the first question is what do we have to do to WIN.

The expectation is after we win we'll have that LTR we all so desire.

My argument is that too many marketing firms only look at the opportunity and ONLY think about the WHATS NEEDED TO WIN, and not the "SHOULD we win"

I've been called by marketing firms of all stripes for help with their pitch to a client that they have no knowledge, no understanding, no hope of winning. For a host of reasons. And I tell them exactly that. Pull back the fangs and think realistically about what you're pitching.

If more ad agencies turned down responding to RF-whatevers and were more selective in their efforts then don't you think our whole industry would be viewed with a bit more respect?

Hopping down off my soap box now... thank you for letting me shout!
January 16, 2013 (11:54 AM EST)

Lance Baird writes:

Bob,

First, some *excellent* stuff here. Thank you for your thoughts - they are always welcome!

In response to the article, not to get lost in nuance, but if the author's intent were as you describe it, clearly that makes more sense. Of course, among the first things we think of (after making the decision to "play" in an RFP process) is certainly, "How do we win?" But it's not the ONLY thing. And this thinking doesn't replace long-term thinking. At any rate, I certainly didn't read the author's comments as you did and apparently, neither did many of my agency friends.

As to your comments on agencies who pitch clients without any real basis for doing so, I couldn't applaud your efforts more. I wouldn't know as much as you in this regard, but it's been my long-standing suspicion there are still many agencies out there pitching to any client who's willing to listen. Are agencies addicted to the pitch? Is it really all we know? And now we have a reality TV series focused on this very thing... great...

Finally, I completely agree that agencies should be more selective. In fact, I often counsel my friends to start in two ways. First, specialize. Pick something that you're really good at and blow that up. Being all things to all people is rarely a good long-term business strategy. Second, use a scorecard as part of your business development process. We use one and it's been incredibly helpful. Plus, clients rarely expect agencies to use one, too, so it's always fun to see the reaction.

Thanks again for your comments. Please keep reading!

Follow Godfrey B2B

Most Recent