Procurement is often treated as a gatekeeping exercise, but in media, marketing and communications it is more than that: it is the first test of whether a client and agency can build a workable partnership. As Kate Midttun, chief executive of Acorn Strategy, argues in Campaign ME, the process is frequently cumbersome, opaque and poorly designed. Yet the problem, she suggests, is not beyond repair.
That view matters because the complaints are not confined to agencies. Procuremen...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
t teams, clients and suppliers increasingly seem to agree that the current model too often produces friction instead of clarity. In Midttun’s telling, the issue is less that procurement exists than that it is too often executed as a formality, with decisions shaped by incomplete briefs, oversized tender lists and hidden budgets rather than by a real understanding of the business problem.
The strongest version of procurement, she writes, is competitive in the best sense: a disciplined way to identify the team that can solve a client’s challenge most effectively. At its best, it rewards good thinking, tests chemistry and forces both sides to be precise about the outcome they want. That is the ideal many in the industry say they want. The reality, however, is usually messier.
A frequent failing is that agencies are brought into a process before the brief has been properly sharpened. Related procurement commentary from Procurify says unclear intake routes, poor approval structures and attempts to automate flawed systems are among the most common causes of dysfunction. In other words, the problem often starts long before the pitch itself. If the underlying issue has not been defined, the tender becomes an expensive exercise in guesswork.
Midttun also takes aim at bloated shortlists. When more than six agencies are asked to compete, she argues, it usually means the client has not done enough homework or does not trust its own filtering process. Other procurement analysts make a similar point in different language, warning that fragmented sourcing slows decision-making, creates confusion and increases the risk of costly mistakes. Large, unfocused competitions can leave agencies burning non-billable time on hopeless bids, while clients are left with proposals that are difficult to compare.
Budget opacity is another recurring weakness. Withholding the number, Midttun says, does not improve value; it simply rewards those best at second-guessing it. That view is echoed in software and project procurement guidance, which warns that underestimated costs, weak due diligence and mismatched vendor capability often lead to failure once contracts are signed. In complex buying decisions, the case for value is usually stronger when the commercial frame is clear from the outset.
Her proposed fix is not radical, but it does require discipline. Treat procurement as the start of the relationship rather than a hurdle before it. Begin with a chemistry conversation, then issue a concise brief that states the challenge, the goal and the likely scope. Use an early information-gathering stage to improve the brief before issuing a full request for proposal. Keep the shortlist tight, share the budget, and make room for agency questions before final submissions are made.
This is also where good process and good culture overlap. If a client wants a consultative partner, it should behave like one during procurement. If it wants strategic thinking, it should invite it early rather than demanding it late. If it wants commercial rigour, it should model that transparently instead of forcing agencies to reverse-engineer the answer.
The broader lesson is that procurement does not need to be reinvented so much as rethought. Across procurement and supply discussions, the same themes recur: overcomplication, poor visibility, inconsistent practice and a tendency to prioritise cost over fit. Midttun’s argument is that these are not inevitable features of the system. They are symptoms of a process that has drifted away from its purpose.
The agencies that enter a pitch are not merely bidding for a contract. They are asking for the chance to solve a client’s hardest problems. If procurement is to serve that purpose properly, it has to become more open, more purposeful and more human.
Source: Noah Wire Services
