Kirstie or Phil – Procurement Lessons CMOS can learn from their TV show ‘Love It Or List It’

There’s a popular (at least with a certain demographic…) TV programme called Love It Or List It, hosted by Kirstie Allsop and Phil Spencer. I’d like to suggest CMOs and their procurement colleagues could learn a thing or two from it.

The premise of the show is that a couple or family are at a crossroads in their opinions about the property in which they live.

Love or Leave?

For a relatively small set of common reasons - outgrowing the home, the layout and flow doesn’t work, there’s a change in required usage such as needing to accommodate full-time home working (you get the picture) - one of the family members wants to sell and move while the other wants to upgrade/renovate/modernise and stay. The classic should I stay or should I go dilemma.

Kirstie acts on behalf of the stayer, designing and inspiring the family home in which they live. It’s going to cost some money (not as much as moving) and there will be disruption as the work takes place, but it will be worth it.

Phil acts on behalf of the leaver, sourcing new properties that fully incorporate the ideal brief, usually sharing properties that the protagonists would have thought were unexpected and out of reach, particularly if some compromises are made regarding the location.

(At this point please don’t get confused with another of Kirstie and Phil’s programme called Location, Location, Location! Together with Kevin McLeod they have the lion’s share of Channel 4 property programming….I digress.)

Having lived in their newly renovated home for a while, the programme ends with the stayer and leaver announcing to Kirstie and Phil if they are going to love it and stay or list it and leave, to the delight and disappointment of K & P depending on the decision.

The CMO Stay or Go Dilemma

Now it occurs to me that CMOs sometimes face a similar decision to make when it comes to their agency partners.

Here are two circumstances that in my experience are very common for which I think Kirstie’s approach is more appropriate than Phil’s.

Scenario 1: The three-year itch

A CMO and their marketing team have been working with the agency (creative, customer, media, it doesn’t matter) for long enough that some niggles and irritants have developed (a new account lead that’s not as good as the original; ideas that are not as fresh and challenging as those that were part of the reason the agency was selected in the first place; results that are not as impressive as originally achieved; or just that the joy that was first there has all but disappeared).

But the reasons for all of these niggles can rarely be laid exclusively at the agency’s doorstep and the best marketers will accept some responsibility for these situations arising.

Fundamentally the relationship is solid and there’s no thought of putting the account up for review.

But something needs to be done to address the issues.

Scenario 2: It’s all going well however company policy demands some governance

We all recognise that longer-term relationships between a CMO, their team, and their agency partners results in better work over time that in turn delivers improved marketing and business performance.

Yet the realities of business governance demand that significant (i.e. spending a lot of money) relationships with external companies should be reviewed, primarily to ensure best value is being achieved.

A pitch is the wrong answer to both circumstances

On too many occasions when faced with the same or comparable circumstances, I’ve heard of brands undertaking a competitive pitch which I believe is the wrong mechanic to address the situation. Sometimes the incumbent agency retains the business. Sometimes. But often a new agency is appointed with nothing more than a promise that things will be better with them. After all, what more is the appointment of a new agency than buying into a promise?

The mistake in both circumstances is to go to market and run a pitch without exploring other options that are much more fit for purpose to both scenarios identified above. Or in the parlance of Kirstie and Phil, to list the relationship rather than love it.

In the case of the three-year itch, a pitch is not going to address any of the issues identified with the incumbent agency and all other pitching agencies will promise the world, which on occasion some do go on to deliver.

Nor will a pitch address some of the challenges that can be laid at the client’s doorstep.

As for the second scenario where commercial governance is required, the danger for the CMO, their team and the incumbent agency is that another agency wins the pitch for short-term gain. It was very close, but they were just cheaper.*

*A reason for losing you will never hear in an AAR run pitch.

So, if not a pitch then what?

I’m glad you asked…

With no apology for the blatant and obvious selling, let me share highlights of the AAR Commercial Audit that we developed specifically for these and other comparable circumstances in which a pitch is the inappropriate tool to use to evaluate an agency.

It’s a diagnostic audit of the commercial, operational and contractual arrangements between a brand and its agency partners.

We evaluate three critical aspects of the relationship:

1. The cost competitiveness of the agency team, remuneration construct and overall commercial arrangements
2. A 180° evaluation of the ways of working between the brand and agency teams
3. An audit of the agency’s production processes and protocols

The benefits of this approach are that commercial governance is undertaken to improve value, drive efficiencies and optimise operational excellence without the distraction of a competitive pitch and the resulting loss of focus and momentum that this will engender across both the marketing and agency teams.

Each element of the audit has teeth in the form of commercial, operational and contractual consequences for all, with changes resulting in positive outcomes, such as:

• A re-framing of the agency team to be more balanced with the right mix of senior, mid weight and junior talent to service the scope of work resulting in a reduced Cost/FTE
• A re-worked PRF (performance related fee) element of the remuneration agreement to be more relevant and aligned to the marketing teams’ own targets and performance metrics
• Recommended and adopted tiered fixed price scopes of work to which the brand and agency both agreed and so avoided continuously negotiating every project
• Tighter production reconciliation protocols to track and manage campaign overspends vs budget with greater speed clarity
• The adoption of new working procedures that are more efficient than were being employed and so reducing the number of creative rounds of development before sign-off

Next time you are thinking of moving home, channel your inner Kirstie

How tempting it can be to go to market, who wouldn’t welcome the super smart perspective on your business being shared by competing agencies.

And there’s a whole army of agency new business folk whose sole function is to persuade you to change agency, and are, in the main, very good at their jobs. I know as I deal with them every day!

But if, at your core, you think you have the right agency and that a little (tough) love and attention will restore the relationship and work to the ambition and expectation of both, spend a little time and money on your current agency partner. You and your agency will be thankful, and the results will definitely be worth it.