It’s really no secret that people hate RFPs. Agencies pretty much echo this sentiment unanimously, and marketing clients don’t seem to like them too much either, at best describing them as a “necessary evil.” Don’t get me wrong, people like the desired outcome of finding new agency partners and winning new business. But the process of writing, responding, managing and reviewing extensive RFP documents and material doesn’t really get to the heart of what clients genuinely want, and because of that many would say the RFP process is broken.
The typical review process: A client issues a written RFP. The good ones include key info such as relevant strategic details, requirements of the mandate, target audience information, timing, budget info, key client factors of success, evaluation criteria, et cetera. (Let’s leave any conversation about speculative
creative requirements out of this.) From this, the agency gets down to work. Small RFPs can be done relatively quickly, but any sizable RFP can take a significant amount of resources to complete. Agencies still typically live off billable hours, and a large RFP will easily take up tens of thousands of dollars in human resources, sometimes hundreds of thousands.
Out-of-pocket expenses can add up on top of this. For 90% of the agencies involved (a.k.a. the ones who don’t win the account), these costs are lost and could have been used more productively. It doesn’t end there. Once agencies have replied to the RFP, clients build a shortlist based on this written response–the same written response that isn’t a great way to communicate agency ideas, people, processes and teamwork. The shortlist process involves a live presentation and other points of clarification from which a leader is selected for final negotiations. In the worst case scenario, agencies that don’t get shortlisted or don’t win, get little to no feedback for all their invested time and resources.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE TRADITIONAL RFP PROCESS ISN’T THE BEST WAY TO GET WHAT YOU REALLY NEED. Marketing clients aren’t looking to buy a widget. Clients are buying ideas, creativity, innovation, people, a process and a team at a fair price.
Clients are buying the trust that they
will be able to work together with the agency to execute it all. Few of these characteristics–except for price–transfer well into a written RFP response. It’s the same reason why I have never seen the “traditional sales” role work in agencies. It is difficult for a “sales person” to sell an intangible like “ideas.” Is there an alternative? Recent experience on an RFP shed some light on what I’d say was a potential format for a new, more effective review process. The client issued an RFP with most of the info outlined above, but the key difference was that the process did not begin with a written response.
Instead, the client asked for a meeting to see the proposed solution that addressed the RFP needs. The agencies benefited by saving dozens of hours on detailed writing, editing, layout, printing, et cetera. The presentation covered all the necessary company background, the proposed approach, pricing details and model and timelines. The client benefited by getting a much better evaluation of the teams and their thinking, and could directly address any questions in person. The mutual benefit was that the live meet-andgreet allowed both parties to more effectively assess “the fit.” From these live meetings, the client generated an agency short list and asked for a limited written response to clarify and document key responses and questions. Ultimately, the client received a more succinct document that cut out the fluff while saving time. From there they made a final decision according to their approval process. The client in question here stumbled upon this process after being frustrated with the first round of companies that they reviewed based on a written-submission formula. They prefer the meeting-based process for the same reasons I do, as do a number of agencies I’ve discussed it with.
One potential objection to this process is that it is too challenging to get decision makers together to each spend an hour reviewing the invited agencies. If that’s the case, then don’t include too many agencies or too many reviewers. Frankly, if decision makers aren’t willing to spend an hour meeting with a potential agency that’s being asked to invest dozens of hours in preparing a response, then it’s likely not the right fit to begin with. The end result of this process was less time writing and formatting, more time getting to know each other and a better way to assess the soft factors critical to client/agency success.
