A familiar fault line in Nigeria’s advertising industry has reopened, this time with practitioners questioning whether competitive pitching still represents a fair way to select agencies or has become a costly exercise that undervalues professional expertise.

The debate followed comments by Kelechi Nwosu, former Chief Executive Officer of TBWA\Concept Unit and former President of the Association of Advertising Agencies of Nigeria, AAAN, who declared during MARKETING EDGE’s Industry Conversation: “The stars don’t audition.”

Nwosu used the statement to challenge the longstanding practice of asking established agencies to repeatedly prove their creative and strategic capabilities through speculative pitches.

According to him, clients should first examine an agency’s body of work, people, processes and pedigree, and then engage the agency in a conversation about the business challenge. “See the work we’ve done, see the people, see the process, look at their pedigree, and then you go and ask us questions,” he said.

He argued that agencies should not be expected to invest substantial time, money and intellectual effort developing strategic and creative solutions merely to compete for the possibility of winning an account.

Nwosu also questioned why advertising agencies should face demands that are uncommon in other professions, pointing to law and medicine as examples where practitioners are generally engaged because of their expertise, reputation and track record rather than being required to provide complete solutions before they are hired.

His intervention has since generated strong reactions from practitioners on LinkedIn, with several professionals expressing support while drawing attention to different aspects of the pitching culture.

Hassan Abdul, MNIPR, ARPA, Communication Architect, gave perhaps one of the clearest indications that some agencies are already changing their approach.

Abdul said he was “100% behind” Nwosu’s position and disclosed that his company had taken a step nearly three months earlier by clearly defining its position in a new engagement policy.

For Abdul, the distinction is between demonstrating capability and giving away strategy.

“Strategy is a product and not a pitching tool,” he said.

He explained that his company would willingly provide agency credentials, past case studies and a high level consulting methodology at no cost as a way of showing prospective clients who they are.

However, he drew a firm line when a brief demands specialised work.

According to Abdul, once an assignment requires his team to deploy research tools, identify specific brand vulnerabilities, develop a customised crisis response architecture or build a bespoke narrative house, it becomes a “Paid Strategic Product.”

While Abdul focused on the commercial value of strategy, Maurice Ugwonoh, Senior Creative Director, Cultural Strategist and Brand Architect, described the wider pitching system in much harsher terms.

Ugwonoh characterised the practice as an “age-old, Colosseum-esque mentality toward marketing agency engagement” that has regrettably survived to this day.

He acknowledged that there could be an argument for competitive selection, comparing it to sportsmanship and a tournament where the strongest agency wins an account.

However, he said no other practice had produced what he described as a “helpless sense of exploitative servitude” while simultaneously creating bitterness among agencies.

He concluded his reaction with the blunt statement: “I swear…Pitch no perfect.”

It was specifically in response to Ugwonoh’s comment that Bolanle Shote, Strategic Communications Leader, PR and Media Trainer, Creative Writer, Brand and Reputation Management and Marketing Communications professional, described the experience as “creative-soul destroying”, accompanied by a crying emoji.

Shote later reacted separately to Nwosu’s position with four clapping emojis and, in another comment, stated: “I have always said this!! Endless pitching exhausts creatives and the most creative agencies don’t always ‘win’ the pitch anyway.”

Her separate comments therefore touched on two distinct aspects of the debate: the emotional and creative toll of repeated pitching, and the fact that winning a pitch does not necessarily prove that the strongest creative agency prevailed.

Another practitioner, Godson Nkeokelonye, Entrepreneur and Venture Builder, said his own organisation had already moved away from pitching.

Nkeokelonye said he read Blair Enns’ Win Without a Pitch years ago and subsequently abandoned pitching as a business practice.

“We stopped pitching years ago and have never regretted it,” he said, adding that his organisation views pitching as essentially free consulting and believes its expertise has value beyond that.

Instead, he said the organisation meets prospective clients, takes time to understand their needs, presents relevant case studies and provides a clear quotation or rate card.

Nkeokelonye also stated a specific condition for accepting briefs: “We don’t pitch on briefs we weren’t involved in creating.”

He explained that unless his organisation has helped shape the procurement process or guided the customer towards a deeper understanding of what is possible, “WE DON’T PITCH!”

Meanwhile, Taiwo SOWORE, ARPA, ABMP, CPCS, Brand Virtuoso, Foresight Strategist, Culture Decoder and Marketing Professional, said Nwosu’s position had reflected his own longstanding view.

SOWORE argued that some clients simply want to assemble different strategies from competing agencies and select one at the end.

He also criticised professional bodies for what he considers insufficient action in establishing standards around the practice.

According to him, agencies spend considerable resources responding to pitches only for “nothing” to come out of the process.

He described this as “a blatant disrespect and disregard from the part of the client.”

SOWORE further used the doctor patient relationship to question the logic of competitive pitching. He asked whether a patient would have the time to assemble several doctors and search for the one who could diagnose the patient better.

For him, the industry needs to move beyond the practice. However, if clients insist on competitive pitches, he argued that agencies should establish their own terms, including a percentage rejection fee at the end of the selection process.

He also called on ARCON to find ways to sanitise the industry and ensure that practitioners receive the respect and regard due to their professional expertise.

“Less talk and more work from the professional bodies please,” he concluded, while thanking Nwosu.

SOWORE’s position subsequently attracted another response from Shote, who observed that “some clients even try to avoid paying the rejection fee!!”

The discussion also received support from Philip Odiakose, Member of the IPR Measurement Commission, who responded directly to Nwosu’s intervention by saying: “Someone needed to say this.. Thanks Chief Kelechi Nwosu.”

Similarly, Olusoji Oladeji, Creative Guru, Copywriter, Concept/Content Creator and Storyteller, said he totally agreed with Nwosu.

Oladeji argued that clients could simply invite agencies they believe understand their communications brief and can provide solutions instead of wasting agency time and resources.

His position was unequivocal: “It’s a NO NO!”

Obianuju Lilian Ikegbune, MNIPR, Public Relations and Marketing Communications Professional, also reacted directly to Nwosu’s post, saying: “I laughed out loud. This caption is audaciously true.”

Her comment was followed by a simple expression of support from Adeolu Adeyemo, Team Lead at Inside Africa Network and Smedan Idea Film Institute, who wrote: “Never late than ever, we’ll said my brother.”

Charles Bature, meanwhile, offered a brief endorsement, telling Nwosu: “I hail you  Sir.”

The range of reactions has given Nwosu’s original comments a broader significance within the industry. Rather than remaining a single practitioner’s criticism of pitching, the discussion has exposed several connected concerns, including unpaid strategic work, creative fatigue, rejection fees, professional standards and the commercial value of intellectual expertise.

The responses also show that practitioners are not necessarily proposing one identical alternative. While Abdul advocates clearly separating free credentials from paid strategic products, Nkeokelonye has rejected pitching altogether. SOWORE is calling for stronger industry standards and compensation mechanisms, while Ugwonoh has highlighted the exploitative character of the current system.

For others, the problem is the sheer creative toll of endless competitions.

What connects the different reactions, however, is a shared concern that agencies should not have to surrender substantial intellectual capital merely to earn the opportunity to work for a client.

Nwosu’s “stars don’t audition” argument has therefore struck a chord because it challenges more than the pitch itself. It questions whether the advertising industry has done enough to recognise its own expertise and whether agencies have, by repeatedly accepting demanding speculative briefs, helped sustain a system they increasingly find difficult to defend.

The growing reaction now puts the spotlight on agencies, clients and industry bodies alike: whether the next chapter of agency selection will continue to be driven by competitive speculative pitches or move towards proven capability, meaningful dialogue, paid strategic engagement and relationships built on professional value.

former Chief Executive Officer of TBWA\Concept Unit and former President of the Association of Advertising Agencies of Nigeria, AAAN, who declared during MARKETING EDGE’s Industry Conversation: “The stars don’t audition.”

Nwosu used the statement to challenge the longstanding practice of asking established agencies to repeatedly prove their creative and strategic capabilities through speculative pitches.

According to him, clients should first examine an agency’s body of work, people, processes and pedigree, and then engage the agency in a conversation about the business challenge.

“See the work we’ve done, see the people, see the process, look at their pedigree, and then you go and ask us questions,” he said.

He argued that agencies should not be expected to invest substantial time, money and intellectual effort developing strategic and creative solutions merely to compete for the possibility of winning an account.

Nwosu also questioned why advertising agencies should face demands that are uncommon in other professions, pointing to law and medicine as examples where practitioners are generally engaged because of their expertise, reputation and track record rather than being required to provide complete solutions before they are hired.

His intervention has since generated strong reactions from practitioners on LinkedIn, with several professionals expressing support while drawing attention to different aspects of the pitching culture.

Hassan Abdul, MNIPR, ARPA, Communication Architect, gave perhaps one of the clearest indications that some agencies are already changing their approach.

Abdul said he was “100% behind” Nwosu’s position and disclosed that his company had taken a step nearly three months earlier by clearly defining its position in a new engagement policy.

For Abdul, the distinction is between demonstrating capability and giving away strategy.

“Strategy is a product and not a pitching tool,” he said.

He explained that his company would willingly provide agency credentials, past case studies and a high level consulting methodology at no cost as a way of showing prospective clients who they are.

However, he drew a firm line when a brief demands specialised work.

According to Abdul, once an assignment requires his team to deploy research tools, identify specific brand vulnerabilities, develop a customised crisis response architecture or build a bespoke narrative house, it becomes a “Paid Strategic Product.”

While Abdul focused on the commercial value of strategy, Maurice Ugwonoh, Senior Creative Director, Cultural Strategist and Brand Architect, described the wider pitching system in much harsher terms.

Ugwonoh characterised the practice as an “age-old, Colosseum-esque mentality toward marketing agency engagement” that has regrettably survived to this day.

He acknowledged that there could be an argument for competitive selection, comparing it to sportsmanship and a tournament where the strongest agency wins an account.

However, he said no other practice had produced what he described as a “helpless sense of exploitative servitude” while simultaneously creating bitterness among agencies.

He concluded his reaction with the blunt statement: “I swear…Pitch no perfect.”

It was specifically in response to Ugwonoh’s comment that Bolanle Shote, Strategic Communications Leader, PR and Media Trainer, Creative Writer, Brand and Reputation Management and Marketing Communications professional, described the experience as “creative-soul destroying”, accompanied by a crying emoji.

Shote later reacted separately to Nwosu’s position with four clapping emojis and, in another comment, stated: “I have always said this!! Endless pitching exhausts creatives and the most creative agencies don’t always ‘win’ the pitch anyway.”

Her separate comments therefore touched on two distinct aspects of the debate: the emotional and creative toll of repeated pitching, and the fact that winning a pitch does not necessarily prove that the strongest creative agency prevailed.

Another practitioner, Godson Nkeokelonye, Entrepreneur and Venture Builder, said his own organisation had already moved away from pitching.

Nkeokelonye said he read Blair Enns’ Win Without a Pitch years ago and subsequently abandoned pitching as a business practice.

“We stopped pitching years ago and have never regretted it,” he said, adding that his organisation views pitching as essentially free consulting and believes its expertise has value beyond that.

Instead, he said the organisation meets prospective clients, takes time to understand their needs, presents relevant case studies and provides a clear quotation or rate card.

Nkeokelonye also stated a specific condition for accepting briefs: “We don’t pitch on briefs we weren’t involved in creating.”

He explained that unless his organisation has helped shape the procurement process or guided the customer towards a deeper understanding of what is possible, “WE DON’T PITCH!”

Meanwhile, Taiwo SOWORE, ARPA, ABMP, CPCS, Brand Virtuoso, Foresight Strategist, Culture Decoder and Marketing Professional, said Nwosu’s position had reflected his own longstanding view.

SOWORE argued that some clients simply want to assemble different strategies from competing agencies and select one at the end.

He also criticised professional bodies for what he considers insufficient action in establishing standards around the practice.

According to him, agencies spend considerable resources responding to pitches only for “nothing” to come out of the process.

He described this as “a blatant disrespect and disregard from the part of the client.”

SOWORE further used the doctor patient relationship to question the logic of competitive pitching. He asked whether a patient would have the time to assemble several doctors and search for the one who could diagnose the patient better.

For him, the industry needs to move beyond the practice. However, if clients insist on competitive pitches, he argued that agencies should establish their own terms, including a percentage rejection fee at the end of the selection process.

He also called on ARCON to find ways to sanitise the industry and ensure that practitioners receive the respect and regard due to their professional expertise.

“Less talk and more work from the professional bodies please,” he concluded, while thanking Nwosu.

SOWORE’s position subsequently attracted another response from Shote, who observed that “some clients even try to avoid paying the rejection fee!!”

The discussion also received support from Philip Odiakose, Member of the IPR Measurement Commission, who responded directly to Nwosu’s intervention by saying: “Someone needed to say this.. Thanks Chief Kelechi Nwosu.”

Similarly, Olusoji Oladeji, Creative Guru, Copywriter, Concept/Content Creator and Storyteller, said he totally agreed with Nwosu.

Oladeji argued that clients could simply invite agencies they believe understand their communications brief and can provide solutions instead of wasting agency time and resources.

His position was unequivocal: “It’s a NO NO!”

Obianuju Lilian Ikegbune, MNIPR, Public Relations and Marketing Communications Professional, also reacted directly to Nwosu’s post, saying: “I laughed out loud. This caption is audaciously true.”

Her comment was followed by a simple expression of support from Adeolu Adeyemo, Team Lead at Inside Africa Network and Smedan Idea Film Institute, who wrote: “Never late than ever, we’ll said my brother.”

Charles Bature, meanwhile, offered a brief endorsement, telling Nwosu: “I hail you 🙌 Sir.”

The range of reactions has given Nwosu’s original comments a broader significance within the industry. Rather than remaining a single practitioner’s criticism of pitching, the discussion has exposed several connected concerns, including unpaid strategic work, creative fatigue, rejection fees, professional standards and the commercial value of intellectual expertise.

The responses also show that practitioners are not necessarily proposing one identical alternative. While Abdul advocates clearly separating free credentials from paid strategic products, Nkeokelonye has rejected pitching altogether. SOWORE is calling for stronger industry standards and compensation mechanisms, while Ugwonoh has highlighted the exploitative character of the current system.

For others, the problem is the sheer creative toll of endless competitions.

What connects the different reactions, however, is a shared concern that agencies should not have to surrender substantial intellectual capital merely to earn the opportunity to work for a client.

Nwosu’s “stars don’t audition” argument has therefore struck a chord because it challenges more than the pitch itself. It questions whether the advertising industry has done enough to recognise its own expertise and whether agencies have, by repeatedly accepting demanding speculative briefs, helped sustain a system they increasingly find difficult to defend.

The growing reaction now puts the spotlight on agencies, clients and industry bodies alike: whether the next chapter of agency selection will continue to be driven by competitive speculative pitches or move towards proven capability, meaningful dialogue, paid strategic engagement and relationships built on professional value.