But then, there as always been a lot of talk within the industry about whether or not the RFP process is any good for agencies. We’ve always been terrific at talking about ourselves (see: this blog) To me though, far too much of the focus has been on what’s good for the agency. The problem, and the problem with the way we as an industry approach a lot of these questions is this: no one cares about what’s good for the the agency.

Acceptance of this simple fact is one of the biggest barriers to us accomplishing any of the fundamental changes that need to happen. The funny thing is, this is EXACTLY the frame of mind we preach to our clients. “Look at things from your customers point of view.” No one should be surprised that framing the debate about RFP’s from an agency point of view doesn’t resonate outside the echo chamber of other agencies. But the fact remains: RFPs are increasing being recognized as a pretty bad tool for getting work done. To this end, I think the best way to get us out of this rut is to reframe the whole argument from why it’s bad for us, to why it’s bad for tour clients.

My belief is that while an RFP is great tool for finding suppliers of commodity products, it’s actually quite a poor tool for finding strategic or creative partners. If you need to order 500 reams of paper, there is a quantifiable cost of these products, and therefore a benchmark from which to establish value of a suppliers proposal. But about when you’re looking for a new logo? Or a new ad campaign? Or new interactive strategy? What is a good price for these? What is the value of a strategy? What is the value of a logo? As an illustration consider:

In 1971 Carolyn Davidson was a graphic design student at Portland State University where Phil Knight was teaching a class on accounting while running his business, Blue Ribbon Sports. Needing a logo for BRS’s new line of athletic shoes, he asked Carolyn, who was freelancing for him, to come up with something. Carolyn charged $2 dollars and hour, and upon the selection of the ‘swoosh’, she submitted her bill for $35.

Fast forward 27 years.

In 2008, Peter Arnell’s agency of the same name is selected by Pepsico to rebrand a number of their products including Tropicana orange juice. Approximately $35 million spent, a 20% dip in sales, and public backlash later, Pepsico announces it will revert back to the original packaging.

The point with this isn’t that a large agency can’t do a proper logo or that you should go for the lowest bid. The point is that with something like a strategy, or a logo, it’s impossible to know the value of it in advance. Anyone would agree that even $35 million for the swoosh would have been money well spent and even $35 for the new Tropicana logo would be too much given it’s damage to the brand.

Given this, why do you, clients, still use a tool best suited for purchasing paper to find a partner to help you develop your relationships with your customers? When you need those 500 reams of copy paper, price may really be your biggest concern. When thinking about your brand though, it can become very difficult to organize what is ultimately a long term strategic choice into 10-20 tactical questions. What is the right question to ask? And what is the right answer? What can you tell about a partner firm from the answers to a 3 page RFP? There is no intrinsic value to a proposed strategy, or ideas for a new identity. And therein lays the structural disconnect between seeking out new brand partners and the RFP. As the client, you’re putting yourself in the position of having to assess relative value of proposals that will only prove their value over time, often long after you’ve paid for it. Yes, there are other indicators besides price. You can look at an agencies results for other clients for example. But those other clients aren’t you, and by the time you know if any agency is the RIGHT agency, how many months have gone by? How much of your budget is spent?

So why do clients still use RFP’s when they’re not good for any one? Mostly because agencies are not proactively offering better alternatives. If ever there was a case of taking our own medicine, this would be it. I won’t claim to have “the” answer here, I don’t think there is “the” answer. Ultimately, this has to be something that each agency does for itself, that is designed around that agencies world view and which will become a point a differentiation for each. But what will be required for all of us is to show the value of this new process, in real terms, to perspective clients. It might mean abandoning the idea of the one big project, with the one big launch event and instead trying lots little ideas to show that a strategy is sound. That’s how I like to work. But the point is this: what’s good for us and our egos isn’t going to motivate clients to change. But by doing what we tell them to do: bringing new, better experiences to market, and demonstrating benefit, we just might all end up better.