Welcome, Guest [Sign In]

August 3, 1998 - Strategy Magazine

Editorial: Bell pitch: Nothing ventured, nothing gained

Bell Canada is being lambasted by the Institute of Canadian Advertising (ica) and other ad industry observers for allegedly succumbing to the personal wishes of its senior-most corporate masters in selecting an agency of record to handle its $60-million advertising account, rather than abiding by the terms of selection agreed upon by all parties at the outset of the review process.

If the rumors, gossip and inside leaks are true, the agency that was ultimately selected for the plum account - Cossette Communication-Marketing - was not, in fact, the first, and some have even suggested, the second or third choice, of the eight-member Bell selection committee, headed by a cadre of senior marketing personnel.

The ica has even gone so far as to call on Bell to publish the results of its internal scoring process and, if it does appear that the arrangement was circumvented by a decree from on high, to reimburse the five losing agencies for the total costs they incurred during the process.

There's one thing missing in all this brouhaha, however. Namely, perspective. The fact is that Bell Canada, like any client involved in making a product or vendor decision - whether it be the chairman of a corporate conglomerate choosing an aor or a six-year-old deciding which flavor of ice cream they'd like on a hot summer day - has the right to make its final choice on the basis of whatever emotional factors happen to be at play at decision-making time.

Obviously, that may not seem fair or right in the Bell case, especially considering all the purported assurances in the early going that political connections would not come to bear on the final decision. If that is ultimately what happened, it is certainly unfortunate, but the fact remains that Bell was totally within its rights to select whichever agency it wanted, on whatever basis it chose. That the selection committee may have been overruled by someone in the executive suite suggests that Bell's chieftains may soon have a managerial mutiny on their hands, but should the company be held publicly accountable, and financially liable, for what transpired? No.

But what about the investment of time, money and resources that went into pitching this huge account? Each of the six short-listed agencies received a payment of $20,000 to put toward their pitch, which they were explicitly told should not involve vast amounts of speculative creative.

Still a drop in the bucket of the real cost of a pitch? That may well be, but any agency spending more than they had been compensated for, did so under no threat or coercion. They did, or at least should have done so, having a pretty clear notion of the risk/return ratio they were facing. All chose to proceed regardless. That is, each of the pitch participants had to have known that, no matter which course the decision-making path took, there was a good chance that, in the end, they would not be selected as the winning agency for the most desirable account to come down the pike in a long time.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Quick Search