By Adetokunbo Modupe

My friend, Kelechi Nwosu, former CEO of TBWA Nigeria, recently questioned the relevance of traditional competitive pitching in marketing communications, arguing that “The stars don’t audition.”

Initially, I was tempted to disagree. But after deeper reflection, drawing on more than three decades of experience in public relations and marketing communications, I am inclined to agree with him but not without modification.

I aligned with Kelechi because I wouldn’t expect Denzel Washington, Richard Mofe-Damijo or the late Olu Jacobs to audition routinely to establish their acting credentials. You also wouldn’t ask Alibaba first to come and demonstrate how to make a joke before giving him a compere role. Neither would I expect globally respected professional services firms such as KPMG or PwC to compete indiscriminately for every routine assignment. Their reputations, expertise, track records and demonstrated capabilities should count for something.

Why, then, should established marketing communications agencies continually be subjected to elaborate pitching exercises merely to prove capabilities they have demonstrated repeatedly?

It is a legitimate question. However, I believe the fundamental problem with pitching, particularly in advertising and public relations, goes beyond whether established agencies should compete for business.

Sometimes, the real problem is not the agencies pitching, but the people calling for the pitch.

A credible agency selection process should begin with a clear understanding of the business or communication challenge requiring professional intervention.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

How competent is the person initiating the pitch? Does that individual understand the organisation’s reputation challenges, business priorities and strategic communication requirements? Can they distinguish between publicity, media relations, corporate reputation management and integrated strategic communications?

More importantly, can they objectively evaluate the expertise required to deliver the desired outcomes?

When a prospective client cannot adequately diagnose the problem, articulate the expected solution or identify the appropriate professional competence, the selection process is fundamentally weakened before the first agency presentation.

The consequence is predictable: agencies are invited to solve vaguely defined problems, presentations are assessed through subjective preferences, and creative theatrics sometimes triumph over strategic substance.

A poorly informed client can turn a potentially valuable professional selection exercise into an expensive contest of presentations rather than capabilities.

Even more troubling is the question of integrity and when prejudice replaces professional judgement.

Over the years, competitive pitching has occasionally been undermined by questionable shortlisting, predetermined outcomes, conflicts of interest, insider influence and outright idea shoplifting.

Another uncomfortable reality is that prospective client representatives may see external consultants as potential internal competitors rather than strategic partners.

Such individuals may approach the selection process with prejudice, insecurity or undisclosed interests, creating circumstances where professional evaluation becomes secondary to personal considerations.

In extreme cases, pitching becomes an opportunity to harvest intellectual property, legitimise predetermined appointments or manipulate procurement decisions.

Where deliberate deception or dishonest appropriation occurs, the conduct may even cross into fraud.

But should these abuses justify abolishing competitive pitching altogether?

Certainly not.

We must understand why Competition Still Matters

Competitive pitching, when properly structured, remains a legitimate way to identify suitable professional partners.

It encourages innovation, challenges complacency, creates opportunities for emerging agencies and allows organisations to compare different strategic perspectives.

Besides, who determines which agencies have become stars?

An established reputation should command recognition and consideration, but it cannot automatically guarantee suitability for every assignment.

A highly accomplished agency may lack the sector-specific expertise, cultural compatibility, capacity, or strategic orientation a particular client requires.

Equally, agencies must accept that losing a pitch does not necessarily suggest manipulation. Sometimes, another agency demonstrates a stronger understanding of the assignment.

Pedigree should earn consideration, not automatic appointment.

The challenge, therefore, is to distinguish between unnecessary auditions that merely validate established credentials and legitimate competitive assessments designed to identify the most suitable professional partner.

Towards a More Credible Pitching Framework

My preferred approach remains a four-stage model:

CREDENTIALS – CHEMISTRY –CHALLENGE – CHOICE.

Credentials: Establish proven competence, relevant experience, professional standing and delivery capacity.

Chemistry: Evaluate strategic alignment, cultural compatibility and the potential for a productive client-agency relationship.

Challenge: Test strategic thinking and problem-solving capabilities without demanding comprehensive solutions or free consultancy.

Choice: Apply transparent, objective and predetermined evaluation criteria to arrive at a defensible decision.

However, this framework requires one critical prerequisite: competent, independent and ethically grounded individuals managing the selection process.

Without these qualities, even the most sophisticated procurement framework becomes vulnerable to manipulation.

Clients must also recognise that strategic thinking is intellectual property. A pitch should demonstrate an agency’s ability to solve a problem, not compel it to surrender the entire solution without compensation.

The Real Question We Should Be Asking

Kelechi has raised an important debate, and it is persuasive.

The stars should not have to audition endlessly to prove they are stars. Established expertise deserves respect, just as clients deserve the freedom to determine which professionals best suit their needs.

But perhaps the more fundamental question is not whether agencies should pitch.

It is whether those inviting agencies to pitch possess the competence, objectivity and integrity to judge them.

Until we confront that question, abolishing competitive pitching may merely replace one flawed selection mechanism with another.

The marketing communications industry does not need fewer opportunities for competition. It needs more intelligent clients, better-defined assignments, stronger professional ethics and more credible selection processes.

Reform the people. Reform the process. Don’t abolish the competitive process.