Laura Agricola-Moss
Something doesn’t smell right.
Free pitching has always been a smelly part of the game, and the tax all agencies have paid for eons.
But lately, something smells different—off. And the stench is impossible to ignore.
At first, I thought it was just here in Australia. A local shift. A bad run. Then, I posted on LinkedIn about a pitch we walked away from. The response? Explosive. A nerve hit. And not just here—everywhere around the world.
As Martin Johnston, founder of Earth Creative Strategies & EarthRating.ai in London suggested, “The whole industry should unite and just stop.”
That’s because this stench is systemic.
I'm talking about clients demanding agencies solve complex strategic challenges and deliver big ideas for free during the pitch process. But it doesn't stop there. The smell lingers. Even long after a contract is signed, existing clients are pushing agencies for more and more—not just more value, but unsustainable value. The kind that forces agencies to run accounts at a loss or risk losing the business altogether.
Communications and Public Relations Australia (CPRA) recently surveyed 73 agency leaders nationwide. Their findings? A disturbing rise in scope creep—where clients agree to a project's scope and price, only to push for more deliverables without additional budget. One leader likened it to procurement "holding a gun" to agencies' heads at the last moment. A constant barrage of threats: deliver more for the same cost or be replaced. Agencies comply out of the sheer need for survival.
It got me thinking—is how you win them how you lose them too?
A friend who runs an independent agency recently shared a story that still makes my stomach turn. It was a big FMCG brand with a budget of $300K for 12-months of always-on content.
They pitched.
They won.
They celebrated.
Four weeks later, with no signed contract, the client dropped a stink bomb: the budget was now $200K. The scope was unchanged. My friend’s agency was free to walk away—but after the time, the effort, the burned-out pitch team, the victory drinks, and the need for that revenue, how could they?
They took the deal.
Weeks later, with still no contract and no work started, the client announced they were auditing their agency village. The account was likely going up for pitch again.
No matter how you look at it, it was a zero-sum game where the client always wins, multiple agencies lose, and the so-called "winning" agency walks into an account they'll never truly profit from.
The pitch is rigged, and we all know it.
The 2024 'Cost of the Pitch II: The Rise of Value' report (a joint report from the ANA and 4As) reveals a startling truth: incumbent agencies are reappointed 66% of the time in reviews. Read that again. The entire pitch process is often just a formality. When incumbents participate in a review, they have an 88% chance of winning.
Take Tourism Tasmania—BMF smashed it with Come Down For Air, but when their term ended, the government forced a pitch process anyway. A total box-ticking, time-wasting, tire-kicking exercise. Honestly? The industry should have boycotted it on principle.
The 2024 OUCH!Factor 'The Hidden Cost of Pitching report (by growth consultancy New Business Methodology (NBM) and global M&A advisory firm SI Partners), paints an even bleaker picture: agencies carry the financial risk and burden, pitching for projects that will likely never be profitable.
UK industry publication Campaign Live's 'Campaign School Report' found that the average pitch cost for agencies was $100K in 2023. Imagine what that would be today? And here's the kicker: It takes on average, 32 months for a creative agency to recover the cost of pitching. THIRTY. TWO. MONTHS.
Marketers and procurement teams know this. They see the numbers. They run the process. They know the pitch is often just theatre. And if not, just a race to the bottom, forcing agencies to undercut, overpromise, and bleed profit just to stay in the game.
And yet, they keep running the same play.
As long as agencies keep showing up and giving it all away for free, why would they ever stop?
The hypocrisy is off the charts.
These same organisations demanding free work from agencies are not giving away 25% of their product or service for free. They wouldn't dream of it.
Looking at the stories in the comments on my LinkedIn post, I see that this stinky practice also comes from NFPs and organisations that proudly tout their "we exist to do good" ethos.
Erin, Director at B Corp agency Young Folks in Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula, sees the irony firsthand. Her agency works with brands aligned to the UN SDGs—brands that preach ethics and impact. Yet even some of them demand fully-fledged strategies for free in the pitch process. "It’s super disappointing when their marketing is all about ethics and impact, but the way they engage their supply chain isn’t."
Let’s be real—how does exploiting agencies for free align with those values? If the commitment to fair labour practices and ‘justice for people’ doesn't extend to fair compensation and mutual respect in all professional collaborations, let's call it what it is: virtue signalling and a reflection of the very exploitative tendencies they claim to stand against.
This broken system fails clients too.
For multiple reasons, which I will address later, the pitch process is often just a wish list compiled by teams who don't know how to do the work or what it costs. So, they punt: "Let the market decide." But the result is bloated, unrealistic scopes that are miles away from what the organisation can afford or execute.
Worse, the process kills real communication between brands and agencies, leading to frustration and missed opportunities on both sides.
Chief Strategy Officer, Marcello Grande from First Person in California sums it up: "There is no way to truly solve a business or creative problem without working alongside the client. Anything else? It's just assumption and guesswork."
He's right. The best ideas aren’t just given away; they’re built together. And this ridiculous process turns pitches into pageants, not partnerships.
Even when a client nails the brief and gets strong initial pitches, post-pitch work often declines. The bold ideas that won the business get diluted. Shifting, unclear briefs lead to generic, ineffective work that ignores the brand’s uniqueness and its customers’ needs.
I refer to a comment John Allert made in 2016, when he was brand director at luxury car brand McLaren. "We had a fantastic pitch with probably the best brief we’d ever come up with and therefore got the best work. The great shame was the brief degradation over time. The best piece of work we ever got out of that agency was in the pitch. Everything after that became more vague, less insightful, and the work got worse—not because of the agency, but because of us."
Let’s get clear about the real toll of this rigged game.
People assume the most significant cost of pitching is financial.
It's not.
The 2023 MediaSense "Pitch Smart" study found that 54% of agency employees believe pitching negatively impacts their mental health, with 86% stating it is excessively time-consuming and costly. Additionally, the same study revealed that 64% of respondents find pitching damaging to agency culture.
Last year, another friend at an independent had a brutal reminder of this.
They pitched—for free, of course—for a charity. The brief was inspiring. The team rallied behind it. Everyone contributed. Everyone cared. It wasn't just a pitch—it was a cause they believed in.
They nailed it. They knew they had. Then, they lost to the incumbent.
A few months later, their exact idea appeared in the real world. Not just the insight. Not just a few loose themes. The entire thing—the platform, the tactics, the activations. You could open the pitch deck word for word and match it to the campaign.
They confronted the client only to be told the contract allowed them to do this. They had signed a participation agreement, and the idea no longer belonged to them, even though they weren’t paid for it.
Months later, the campaign went on to win a coveted award. The incumbent agency took to social media, celebrating its success.
For my friend, it was a gut punch followed by a punch below the belt.
Yes, they lost the financial opportunity.
But they equally lost the creative opportunity. Recognition. Morale.
That win was theirs to enjoy and to celebrate.
But the moment they walked into that pitch room, they never stood a chance.
Let’s get real about the source of the stench.
It's easy to point fingers at clients and procurement.
But we did this to ourselves. We trained the industry to expect free strategy and ideas as standard. We devalued our expertise, throwing our best thinking into an abyss, hoping to get lucky. We turned our brilliance into a commodity not worth the ink it's printed with. That's on us.
But what's made it worse is the economy going to shit.
In a downturn, for marketers, budgets tighten, expectations rise, and long-term thinking disappears.
It's no secret that marketers are under relentless pressure to show faster, cheaper ROI. More of their budgets are funnelling into performance marketing, squeezing everything else.
And when every dollar is being scrutinised, they don't want to pay for the thinking. They don't want to pay an agency to "get to know them." They just want the answer.
Experienced senior marketers are being replaced with less seasoned professionals. Marketing disciplines are increasingly being consolidated under leaders who are specialists—but in something else entirely.
The result? A rise in RFQs that are vague, misaligned, or overly prescriptive—not crafted by marketers who understand what they need but by procurement teams and armchair experts working off checklists.
A Client Services Director based in London shared a telling insight: They're seeing more RFPs where pricing carries the heaviest weight in decision-making. In many cases, this means it's not about the right agency. It's not about the best idea. It's not about long-term success. It's just about who is the cheapest.
Thankfully, not everyone stinks.
There are clients and procurement teams out there that uphold partnership over exploitation and offer a process – an experience – that feels ethical and mutual from the get-go.
It starts with due diligence—doing their own research to shortlist 3-4 agencies that align with their needs.
They're also transparent about budgets, pay a nominal pitch fee, and focus on chemistry, credentials, methodologies, and sector expertise rather than demanding free ideas and IP.
This creates an environment where:
- IP stays where it belongs.
- Expertise is valued, not exploited.
- The best agency wins.
- The partnership starts on the right foot.
- Trust in the relationship can foster.
But they’re disappearing fast.
How we stem the stink
As I said, my LinkedIn post struck a nerve across borders and boardrooms for a reason—this isn't just another industry gripe; it's a call for real change.
I collated suggestions from the comments (geez, we're a clever bunch), and what's clear is this: as a global community, we believe this can be fixed. But it takes everyone—clients who care, agencies who’ve had enough, and industry bodies willing to step up.
Agencies: Hijack the system
Because we can't keep playing by broken rules.
- Prove you understand the client's problem / world. That's what consulting firms do—and they don't give away free solutions.
- Outline a straightforward approach. Show how you'd solve it, the methodologies, and the processes—but never hand over the answer.
- Demonstrate why you're the best option by: a) Showcasing success stories and credentials in similar industries. b) Highlighting best-in-class talent with proven expertise in the exact task required.
Procurement & Pitch Consultants: Stop treating agencies like cattle
Because if you're running a cattle call, expect a lot of bullsh*t.
- Shortlist smarter. No more 20+ agency beauty parades—3 to 4 contenders is enough.
- Be transparent. Set clear, realistic expectations on scope and budget. No bait-and-switch.
- Value expertise over price. The cheapest agency isn't always the best agency.
- Pay a small pitch fee. You wouldn't work for free. Neither should agencies.
Marketers: Respect the process and get the best.
Because if you treat agencies like disposable vendors, don't be shocked when the relationship crumbles.
- Test chemistry, not compliance. Meet agencies before the pitch to gauge values and working styles.
- Give them a real project. Timeline, budget, deliverables—not just a hypothetical wish list.
- Work with them, challenge them, and see how they think in a real-world setting.
- Look beyond the pitch deck. Great work happens in partnership after the pitch, not during. So, Review track records, case studies, and testimonials.
- Don't ask for free strategy or ideas. Ever. That reeks.
- If a project isn't locked in internally, don't waste agency time pitching for it.
Industry Bodies: Step up and clean house
Because it's your job.
- Regulate pitch practices. Advocate for best practices and fair competition.
- Call out bad behaviour. More transparency means fewer horror stories hidden in the shadows.
- Back agencies with real muscle. Empower collective action so agencies can push back as a united force—not scattered voices easily ignored.
If clients are serious about finding the right creative partner, here’s a simple rule: Invest in the relationship from the start. Pay for the time, the thinking, and the talent you demand—because the best agencies aren’t just looking to win a pitch; they’re looking to build something great with you.
And when both sides bring respect to the table, the best work follows.
Laura Agricola-Moss is strategy director at Keep Left.