Outcry following Merseytravel appointment from 'shortlist' of 29
Outcry following Merseytravel appointment from 'shortlist' of 29Merseytravel has appointed Manchester-based Vivid and Liverpool-based Kenyon Fraser after a tender process that outraged many in the marketing and media process.
Vivid has been awarded a £1.1m tourism brief while Kenyon Fraser picked up a £700k travel marketing business.
Controversy was ignited when it emerged that the organisation has ‘shortlisted’ 13 companies for one brief and 16 for the other.
Said one marketing services company chief executive, “It was an absolute disgrace, this company clearly had no idea of what it was looking for or how to run a review process. They have probably collectively caused the industry more money than the value of the jobs themselves. Since clients generally get the marketing they deserve you have got to be concerned whether the ultimate output will do the job this organisation needs done.”
Another described the process as a ‘complete lottery.’
In a statement the company said: “Following the a six month tender and selection process, Merseytravel has appointed Vivid and Kenyon Fraser to support the marketing of travel services and key visitor attractions over the next four years.
“Vivid will lead on the development of a range of new marketing initiatives for the organisation's attractions portfolio that includes the world famous Mersey Ferries brand.
“Liverpool based Kenyon Fraser will support a range of new marketing initiatives to increase the visibility and awareness of the organisation's travel products and services. This will include brand development for Merseytravel's programme of smart and integrated tickets as well as activity geared towards encouraging behavioural change among non users of public transport.”
New to The Drum
You will be sent a verification email. Click on the link in the email to post your comment.
Comments
comments
More fool the companies that agreed to pitch. Walk away, or you get the client you deserve.
We were another that walked. Shortlisting to 13 agencies was joke enough, but the brief required the submission of a full creative and media strategy without even the courtesy of allowing everyone who submitted the opportunity to present their work.
Plus to add insult to injury the brief allowed flexibility to use existing guidelines or to create your own "future guidelines"... hmmm... try fairly evaluating that!
Disappointing given the amount of work completed to get through the original PQQ.
We were another that walked. Shortlisting to 13 agencies was joke enough, but the brief required the submission of a full creative and media strategy without even the courtesy of allowing everyone who submitted the opportunity to present their work.
Plus to add insult to injury the brief allowed flexibility to use existing guidelines or to create your own "future guidelines"... hmmm... try fairly evaluating that!
Disappointing given the amount of work completed to get through the original PQQ.
Another great example of how flawed public procurement is. We were recently invited to Pitch following PQQ and ITT for a HE College website re-development. We were given 10 minutes to present our ideas and visuals for the site. When we arrived there were 3 agencies waiting to go in and 1 coming out. When we asked how many agencies were pitching we were told 16! 16 Agencies with visuals and 10 minutes etc. When we asked why so many agencies, the response was "We've got it wrong so many times in the past we wanted to make sure we makde the right decision this time round"
It's a joke - but if you dont buy a ticket you cant win the lottery can you!
Yet another example of getting agencies to provide clients with free marketing and creative input.
How to safeguard the role of the marketing department is conduct a six month review. The budget quoted in the story above certainly wasn't what we were told which was ocnsidearbly lower.
comments
I've been droning on about this practice for most of my life. It started with the bizarre experience of pitching for a global brown goods brand whilst working with one of the top ten ad agencies. The pitch schedule was so tight, we ended up helping another agency out with their concept boards, so we could get ours in.
We discovered later that we were one of 13 agencies providing free new ideas, and the incumbent kept the account. What a surprise.
The Marketing Services CEO quoted in the article got it completely right, suggesting that the cost to the industry is massive. Genuine congratulations to Vivid and Kenyon Fraser, and fingers crossed that the budgets really do turn out to be that big.
But for all of us, the only way to stop this is to walk away if the numbers are as crazy as this. Always ask how many other agencies are pitching and who they are. You have to make your own minds up about the limit (the ideal is 2 or 3) but anything close to double figures is ridiculous. If the client won't tell you, suspect the worst and don't waste your time.
Times are tough and getting invited to pitch in any circumstances can seem compelling. But lottery pitching is not a way to navigate through the downturn. It will kill the industry if we let it. It will kill your business if you do it too often.
We were another that walked. Shortlisting to 13 agencies was joke enough, but the brief required the submission of a full creative and media strategy without even the courtesy of allowing everyone who submitted the opportunity to present their work.
Plus to add insult to injury the brief allowed flexibility to use existing guidelines or to create your own "future guidelines"... hmmm... try fairly evaluating that!
Disappointing given the amount of work completed to get through the original PQQ.
We too walked. Would be interesting to know how many (and who) actually presented. I guess we could do a FOI request, or The Drum could pursue this story in both its narrow and broadest sense) and do a bit of real journalism on this ridiculous pratice....
The reason why this is so common nowadays, is because most marketing directors and managers, are so lightweight and inexperienced, and incapable of making a decision, that they work on the 'more is better' principal, in order to cover their arses.
However, it only happens, because our industry is prepared to play by these rules - which unfortunately, is a case of 'move me I'm burning'.
If our industry really does want things to change, then we all have to stand together, and refuse to take part in these pitches. Only then, will client attitude be forced to change.
Unfortunately, this 'chain' will only ever be as strong as its weakest link, and there will always be those agencies prepared to have a tilt at the windmill - and in the current climate, it is of course understandable.
But, sometimes, you have to take a bit of pain, in order to have a better future.
Maybe it's time our industry started showing a little more self respect for the talents and contributions we make to business, and stop behaving like a 'desperate to please' children and start behaving like highly skilled professionals offering a service a real value and expertise.
I've just posted a comment about this very thing on the St Andrews University article.
I agree with 11.27 and most of the other comments regarding this appalling behaviour by clients but it only happens because we let it. But i disagree about having to stand together, that'll be like herding kittens with our industry.
However, we each need to make the simple decision that when you've got a massive pitch list and want a load of work for no money you have to say "off you f**k!".
We've got to stop deluding ourselves the that these p**s pot jobs are worth anything, let alone our talent and energy.
Pretty soon they'll all get the work they deserve.
comments
This just perpetuates the story that if you dare to venture into Liverpool, someone will rob you blind!
Write Your Comment