There is no standard set of rules and do's and dont's as to how to conduct an account review. Accounts( clients) generally compile a list of outside agencies ( the ones with which they are not already doing business) and scan their work to know their expertise, experience and reputation. They can also include other agencies that are handling their other brands( one client like LEVER has many brands and each brand is dealt with a different agency in a system called 'Roster') and ask them to pitch for the brand whose advertising is in review. the incumbent agency is required to fight against all these new ones...Questionnaires are sent out, a lot of discussions with peers of the marketing world happens and some 4-5 agencies get shortlisted for the final game called as 'pitching'. The end of which in theory clears the air, but in practise again more vagueness remains...
Dissatisfaction with a client or turnover in the chief-marketers/brand manager's post at the clients side may cause a review but in some cases it happens as a routine also.. yet other cases as I have seen the Marketing team would be glad at its agency but the others will have a problem that will lead to a review !... In the first scenario, the decision to participate in the review is one heck of a pain for the incumbent agency because the chances according to some studies, to hold back the account is just 10%...
As some one said..
"if you have a shitty relationship, and the business goes up for review, it’s going to be difficult to suddenly become something great for them from that starting point.....If the relationship is good, then, of course, you defend it with everything you’ve got.”
And shitty it will be unless the relation has been total, permanent, and equal.....
The famous case of Crispin ,Porter & Bogusky getting back with 'thanks but no thanks' when Volkswagen invited its agency of four years to repitch its $200-million-plus ad account last month, raised many an eyebrow........ the agency logic :-“As a rule, we do not participate in reviews for our current accounts, and this will not be an exception.” The outsider may be a little perplexed at this refusal to DEFEND its creativity but for the agency it is a question of pride ,made to look like practicality. The raised eyebrows because, declining to defend when the consequence is waving goodbye to a fat and prestigious ad budget in a poor economic environment is simply and audacious statement that an agency makes... critics apart, when the pitch and review is unjustified from the agency point of view, then why the farce of a pitch and presentation again....?
And when the fact is that nine out of 10 times, defending is a waste of time and money the incumbent agency either says a 'thanks but let me go', or participates 'for the heck of it'... If the agency has failed to demonstrate its value in a way the client appreciates during their normal relations,then when a review happens, you’re staring from a much deeper hole than the bright shiny new objects of desire that a pitch offers....
Some times ( or is it too often ?) the clients go over board to review and review ,again and again in vain attempts to shift the blame and balls for its own failures or simply to proove 'who is the boss'..... the recent case of 'Reckitt Benckiser forcing Euro RSCG (my former agency), its incumbent global agency, to defend a chunk (the Nurofen account) of its £800 million advertising business twice in last four months.....!!!
As they say..."What counts in making a happy relation is not so much how compatible you are, but how you deal with incompatibility."
***************************************************************
For a related article click here .......................
