By John Boyes

For more than 30 years of my life I worked in London advertising agencies: my last job there was as a senior board director of McCann-Erickson, leading a team responsible for the marketing, advertising and sales promotion of all of Kodak's UK products and services.

During my time at McCanns, FCB, Benton & Bowles and Lintas I had new business responsibilities. It was an industry heavily into ^"pitching" and, like so many other business men and women, we were selling intangibles ideas and plans and, of course, ourselves!

My overwhelming curiosity throughout this period was with the competition ... what were they saying? doing? differently? better? worse?

Now I know (at least a great deal more). Because for the last 11 years I have been a training consultant. I work with individuals, and teams in companies who, as my son tells me, "are looking for a result!" A "result" which means commitment, money and big decisions in a wide range of businesses and professions.

And I have been very fortunate and "crossed this fence" to work with the "choosers", seeing presentations through their eyes: what were they looking for? - - - what turned them on? And off?... how did they choose?

I would like to share with you some of the learning (principles, ideas and techniques) that I have absorbed during this period.

To cross reference my experience with yours I have chosen to caption each moral or story with what I regard as a "Popular Misconception" - are any of them yours?

When I worked in advertising agencies the pitch was everything, life and sudden death: we were high on adrenaline, it was like a penalty shoot out in a European cup final: "If we score three more goals in the next two minutes (just before 5.30!) it's champagne glory. If not it's personal and corporate disgrace ("we lost it") eternal gloom and woe.

Companies in the City of London still seem to work that way, the clients call them "Beauty Parades". Can they really be looking for a glamorous team who can present well? I doubt it - you wouldn^'t if you were choosing: what you would most likely want is a relationship with real people to work with. People who are going to be up-front about giving you not just the good news, but the bad news too.

So how can clients find out more about this potential relationship if the suitors spend all the time talking about themselves? Specially when there is only 11/2 hours to find out. As a "pitcher" you are going to be looking for something much more interactive.

But what other lessons can be learned?

Let's take the period before the presentation ...

Most pitches are made in response to a client brief. We all know that briefs contain lots of facts but seldom the things you want to know, the important feelings and attitudes (which, often, cannot be written down) - the critical why are you doing this? why now? what happened before? Good and bad. So here's the lesson: the smart companies (the "winners") are insisting on a check the brief meeting. "Our first thoughts... can you confirm?... how important? ... how are you going to choose? . what are the likely characteristics of the winning proposal/bid/team?".

And if you are unconvinced by this argument talk to a Government department who issues a tender document - many are now simply taking consultants off their shortlist if they just rush away and start developing plans.

Sounds common-sense? Yes, but this is not the reason. My own low-level qualitative research, gained by calling companies who have instituted a "pitch" situation The purpose? to check just how/important the pitch is.

My finding is that "More than 60% of clients had a predisposition of who they would prefer to work with before the presentation.

How did they know? ... you guessed! First impressions count (and endure) and they were formed by that first (check the brief) meeting.

Managing the time frame of the crucial "pitch' session is tricky. We all know how easy it is to run out of time with members of our team missing their speaking parts etc. and how frustrating this is for all parties. Much of my work involves (active) coaching of a team in a rehearsal (day before) situation and I have been researching the practice time vs. the real time (the next day). I have been doing this for over two years now and my finding is that the real pitch always takes longer - usually by 25%-30%! Running out of time, specially for the critical prospect's question time, is criminal and leaves everybody with the feeling of a mishandled meeting.

So the first moral of the story is that everybody should aim to under-run their presentation times at the vital team rehearsal. Given you have a fifteen minute slot in the presentation, aim to manage a ten minute rehearsal time. But why stop there?

The real purpose of the whole session is for the prospect to get a feel of what it would be like to work with you (not be presented at!). Your time for them is much more important than your time for you -so why not a radical rethink?

The most enjoyable, rewarding (and successful) pitch I have ever sat in on was a couple of years ago, again I was with the client "helping choose ..."). Each of the competing companies had been given just one hour to make their case.

The winning agency came with only three people, each with a speaking role (a key rule, as is having less people than your audience) They opened by stating that the client's brief had raised three key issues for them: "one obvious, one controversial and one they didn't think the brief had addressed".

And here's the hub the leader said "It will take me and my two colleagues just 15 minutes to identity the what and why of each issue and we've allowed 45 minutes to get your reactions."

You should have been there! The audience perked up and relaxed; they knew why they were there; they were going to enjoy this situation.... get the most out of it ... "it was for them" ... what a joy. The pitching team were potential "winners" before they had started presenting.

Let nobody decry ^"brainstorming" it is a brilliant technique, it is quick, fun and delivers high quality results. Why is it so many companies use it so infrequently or so badly? It is a must for companies seeking to improve the creativity of their thinking and outputs.

But this is not the moral of this story. In today's ultra-competitive business climate the "winners" are the teams who can be seen to have made "an extra investment to find out more

Let me give you an example. A few years ago I was asked by a regional board of British Rail (remember them?) to sit on a panel to help them choose a video production company to make a series of safety films...

I found it interesting but scary: I was concerned the chairman would ask directly whom I would choose but he did not (and I did not have to). What was clear was the amount of adrenaline flowing through the choosing team.

Halfway through the day the chairman nudged me in the ribs and said "Isn't it fun choosing?" and then after a long pause (and a suitable change in expression) commented "and won't it be bell living with our choice!" But this is not the main point of this story. One potential film making company had invested time (just 3-4 hours, maximum, of one of the their people) getting out of the office to visit a couple of BR stations and talk with staff (And, of course, they had gained BR's permission to do this first).

With this small, but significant investment this company managed to lace their presentation and the question time with real stories and anecdotes from named members of BR about their attitudes to safety. They emphasised the different attitudes to safety that signalmen vs. ticket collectors vs. drivers vs. station staff vs. track layers had.

After this team had left the room I asked the panel how they felt about this team. They smiled and nodded and somewhat sheepishly admitted that they felt "they were talking to other old railwaymen... just like themselves!"

Guess which team won.

It is obvious that communications need to be shaped, trained and expressed in both form and language that an audience finds easiest to assimilate (and it is very seldom yours!). For example, some people absorb new information quicker and deeper from pictures, some from sounds. Talk to a lawyer in legal language and watch him pick up his ears.

But take care! For a few years, I worked for an advertising agency which handled one of the biggest names in packaged goods business. The client was very prestigious and highly respected by the agency and I was delighted to be chosen to lead a small team on a new product development project. Our agency briefed us very well about the category and product field but not about our client. We went to the company^'s HQ with just a little apprehension (and rightly so!). The meeting was conducted in the atmosphere of a university debating society. Each argument was scrutinised in great detail, examined with intellectual rigour and the debate felt really fierce - a baptism of fire we thought. Afterwards, in the pub, still with our client, they had changed the agenda from "business^" to 'social'; they were positively "matey" caught you out with a question they chortled .. what did you really think about?"

Next day, back at the agency, we had a short team meeting. "Cracked it" we agreed: all we have to do is prepare very thoroughly for the debate (meetings) and buy more pints of beer than they do.

The honeymoon lasted just 6 weeks... after which my managing director got a letter from their managing director saying he didn't feel the new team were making much of a contribution.

The moral of the story? We had become too much like them: not what they were looking for from their advertising agency (or a consultancy).

• Style is as important as content IS09000 (often more): Peterborough)

• Our programme/proposal is expensive: we must build up the rationale sell the quality. before we mention the price (ERM + Def. payment)

• "Wow! we've answered the brief let's leave it there" (Graeme Collins)

• Let's get the prospect down here: we always perform better on our own ground. (PR: Claire)

• We have to do a 'credentials' presentation they don't know anything about us (Nashua)
• The client asks at the end of the pitch. do we have one last question. (R.Shaw)

• is it a good idea to have one?

• We did well on the pitch: now we must wait for the prospects' decision in 10 days time (Kenchingham Ford)

Disclaimer

Contact Webmaster

© John Boyes / Through the Loop Consulting Ltd 1998-2000