When one agency discovered that a competitor had accessed its private pitch materials before the final presentation — and later won the business — it was more than a singular grievance. It was, as the agency noted, just one of “a number of warning signs that this was not an above-board process.”
The same process included an evaluation panel featuring a rival agency, public commentary from decision-makers during the review and no formal notification of the decision. The agency only learned of their loss by reviewing public meeting minutes. Taken together, the experience left the agency questioning whether the process had been compromised from the start.
“The lack of professionalism is astounding and is among the worst examples of poor client behavior I have ever seen — and certainly have ever experienced,” the respondent wrote.
In a separate pitch, another agency worked through multiple selection rounds and was ultimately awarded the contract, only to later discover it had been the sole competing agency from the start. It raised a simple question: Why was a full, resource-heavy pitch process necessary at all?
This piece reinforces the findings of the groundbreaking 2023 report by the 4As and ANA, The Cost of the Pitch and features insights from 4As CEO Justin Thomas-Copeland and 4As members.
