What Agency Growth Leaders Want For The Pitch Process

The traditional agency pitch for blue chip brands maybe under pressure. Decision-makers are changing with an increase in expectations from the C-suite, and the cost of competing for new business remains stubbornly high.

PepsiCo's decision to swap Omnicom for Publicis Groupe, following a direct pitch from the Publicis Groupe CEO Arthur Sadoun, points to a shift in how major accounts are won. The traditional route through the CMO is no longer a given. As AI moves up the corporate agenda, CEOs are taking a greater interest in marketing and transformation decisions, forcing agencies to rethink who they pitch to and how they build relationships.

Yet for all the changes in how brands find and appoint agency partners, the costly, time-consuming pitch process remains largely intact. So does the pitch deck.

For new business and growth leaders, a persuasive presentation and a well-stocked contacts book are no longer enough. They must navigate increasingly complex decision-making structures, shifting commercial expectations, and growing pressure to make the shortlist.

But what would they change about the process if they could?

Some of the industry's leading new business executives shared their hopes and thoughts to identify the one change they would most like to see.

Madeleine Ware, head of marketing and new business, House of Communication UK

I’d love to see our industry spend more time challenging the problem before rushing to deliver the solution, and that starts with how pitches are run. We are often asked to produce the solution before we’ve had a proper conversation with the client. We’re all under pressure to move faster, particularly with AI changing how we work, but speed means very little if we’re solving the wrong problem.

The biggest opportunities usually come from understanding human behaviour and what’s really holding a brand back, and that’s hard to diagnose from a written brief. More chances to meet would let both sides be more curious, collaborate sooner, and challenge the brief where it's needed.

Cat Davis, chief marketing officer, VML UK

I’d like to see new business become less about performing at each other and more about working with each other. Agencies are rightly asked to prove their thinking, talent, and capabilities, but the best partnerships need two functioning sides.

Give a small shortlist proper access to the people and the problem, then let the teams work together. How people listen, challenge, and build together will tell you far more about the partnership than another hundred beautifully rehearsed slides.

Andrew Dimitriou, global chief client and growth officer, DEPT

Smart clients know this already: they've stopped pitching. Period. They've replaced pitching with chemistry sessions, and they have done their homework beforehand; they also invest more in pre-selection. This lets clients choose the people they like and trust to grow their business.

Jemima Monies, group chief growth officer, AMV BBDO

Transparency around budgets. When figures are shared at the outset of a process, we frequently find that the final budget is reduced by a third, and sometimes by as much as half, despite the scope remaining unchanged. We recognise that client budgeting can be complex and that some degree of negotiation is expected. However, the budget is a key factor in an agency’s decision to participate in a pitch, based on the commercials being viable at that point in time.

Setting expectations around budgets that are not ultimately realistic can therefore have a significant impact, not only on the agency’s commercial outlook, but also on the trust and goodwill underpinning the process.

Eddy Yan, new business and marketing director, Wonderhood Studios

One thing I'd love to see improve is greater transparency at the beginning of a pitch process. What stakeholders are involved throughout the entire process? What actually is the budget? And in tandem with that, what is the real scope here? As pitch processes are shortening and expectations are becoming greater, having more clarity on what we’re signing up for in a process would be great.

Elisha Pearce, chief growth officer, Iris

In pitches, we’re seeing decision-making shift towards procurement and commercial teams, with marketing increasingly treated as a cost to control rather than an investment in growth. That leaves CMOs accountable for results but with less influence over the partners appointed to deliver them, while e-auctions turn agency selection into a race to the bottom.

Smaller shortlists, meaningful time together, and greater weight given to marketing’s judgement would help clients choose partners for the value they can create.

Oli Richards, chief growth officer, Saatchi & Saatchi London

It’s honestly all a bit mad out there. Pitch processes wildly out of whack with the budget/opportunity at the end, huge upfront submissions before you’ve even seen a human being, and shortlists alongside nine other agencies.

So how do we sort it? Well, I think there are a few things:

• Clarity on process from the get-go - clarity on process from the get-go – clients should set out the basics at the start: the real brief, who’s making the call, the timeline, what’s being judged and what feedback losing agencies will get. It makes for a cleaner process, and agencies know what they’re signing up for.

• Get the decision-maker in the room – too many pitches are presented to a panel and then signed off by someone who never met the agency. If the CEO or CMO is making the call, they need to be on the journey not just at the destination.

• Size the ask to the prize – asking a long list to do full creative for an account whose fee might not cover the cost of pitching is bad maths for everyone. A shorter list and an ask scaled to the budget gets clients better thinking from the agencies who actually want the business.

But this stuff will only work if agencies are willing to say no. If you are never going to walk away from a process or opportunity, you can’t bemoan the process.