ll respond via email to all the agencies. It would be an unfair advantage if we were to answer your questions in person.” The process isn’t about being fair. It is about finding the firm best suited for the job.

If companies hired marketing leaders the way many select agencies today, hiring mistakes would be rampant. Several candidates would be expected to write complete marketing plans without any interaction with the company or its people. Research wouldn’t be shared. Bu

If companies used the same process to hire chief marketing officers that they use when selecting advertising agencies, the wheels of commerce would grind to a halt. Imagine a CEO saying “We need a new marketing vice president. Call purchasing.” This is happening in corporate America as the advertising business is seen as a commodity entrusted to the lowest possible bidder.

Gone are the days when advertising agencies were selected on chemistry, powerful ideas, and personal insights that translate into industry defining work.

Today, among the last considerations are chemistry and quality of interaction between agency teams and client. Many clients are dictating price, service terms, and advertising strategy in a take-it-or-leave-it approach that leaves agencies scratching their heads.

“Advertising purchase decisions are often handled by corporate purchasing agents. The process is becoming ritualized around return on investment,” says Jim Copacino, founder of Copacino+Fujikado. “I don’t see this changing soon. The only way that agencies can combat this is to focus on creativity and their ability to demonstrate that powerful ideas can change consumer behavior.”

That’s tough to do when more advertising reviews often keep contact with agency people to a minimum. Good matches between clients and agencies used to be made by with a healthy dose of interaction between parties looking for the right talent match, expertise and fit. Agencies inspired to invest in learning a client’s business were greeted with an open door. Clients would form an opinion of an agency by the quality of the questions asked and the thoroughness used in investigating the opportunity. Today’s politically correct advertising review process deemphasizes interaction. For example, my recent request for an input meeting with a potential client was met with this voicemail reply: “Send me your questions in writing, and we will respond via email to all the agencies. It would be an unfair advantage if we were to answer your questions in person.” The process isn’t about being fair. It is about finding the firm best suited for the job.

If companies hired marketing leaders the way many select agencies today, hiring mistakes would be rampant. Several candidates would be expected to write complete marketing plans without any interaction with the company or its people. Research wouldn’t be shared. Bud

nsights that translate into industry defining work.

Today, among the last considerations are chemistry and quality of interaction between agency teams and client. Many clients are dictating price, service terms, and advertising strategy in a take-it-or-leave-it approach that leaves agencies scratching their heads.

“Advertising purchase decisions are often handled by corporate purchasing agents. The process is becoming ritualized around return on investment,” says Jim Copacino, founder of Copacino+Fujikado. “I don’t see this changing soon. The only way that agencies can combat this is to focus on creativity and their ability to demonstrate that powerful ideas can change consumer behavior.”

That’s tough to do when more advertising reviews often keep contact with agency people to a minimum. Good matches between clients and agencies used to be made by with a healthy dose of interaction between parties looking for the right talent match, expertise and fit. Agencies inspired to invest in learning a client’s business were greeted with an open door. Clients would form an opinion of an agency by the quality of the questions asked and the thoroughness used in investigating the opportunity. Today’s politically correct advertising review process deemphasizes interaction. For example, my recent request for an input meeting with a potential client was met with this voicemail reply: “Send me your questions in writing, and we will respond via email to all the agencies. It would be an unfair advantage if we were to answer your questions in person.” The process isn’t about being fair. It is about finding the firm best suited for the job.

If companies hired marketing leaders the way many select agencies today, hiring mistakes would be rampant. Several candidates would be expected to write complete marketing plans without any interaction with the company or its people. Research wouldn’t be shared. Bu

opacino, founder of Copacino+Fujikado. “I don’t see this changing soon. The only way that agencies can combat this is to focus on creativity and their ability to demonstrate that powerful ideas can change consumer behavior.”

That’s tough to do when more advertising reviews often keep contact with agency people to a minimum. Good matches between clients and agencies used to be made by with a healthy dose of interaction between parties looking for the right talent match, expertise and fit. Agencies inspired to invest in learning a client’s business were greeted with an open door. Clients would form an opinion of an agency by the quality of the questions asked and the thoroughness used in investigating the opportunity. Today’s politically correct advertising review process deemphasizes interaction. For example, my recent request for an input meeting with a potential client was met with this voicemail reply: “Send me your questions in writing, and we will respond via email to all the agencies. It would be an unfair advantage if we were to answer your questions in person.” The process isn’t about being fair. It is about finding the firm best suited for the job.

If companies hired marketing leaders the way many select agencies today, hiring mistakes would be rampant. Several candidates would be expected to write complete marketing plans without any interaction with the company or its people. Research wouldn’t be shared. Bu

ise and fit. Agencies inspired to invest in learning a client’s business were greeted with an open door. Clients would form an opinion of an agency by the quality of the questions asked and the thoroughness used in investigating the opportunity. Today’s politically correct advertising review process deemphasizes interaction. For example, my recent request for an input meeting with a potential client was met with this voicemail reply: “Send me your questions in writing, and we will respond via email to all the agencies. It would be an unfair advantage if we were to answer your questions in person.” The process isn’t about being fair. It is about finding the firm best suited for the job.

If companies hired marketing leaders the way many select agencies today, hiring mistakes would be rampant. Several candidates would be expected to write complete marketing plans without any interaction with the company or its people. Research wouldn’t be shared. Bu

ll respond via email to all the agencies. It would be an unfair advantage if we were to answer your questions in person.” The process isn’t about being fair. It is about finding the firm best suited for the job.

If companies hired marketing leaders the way many select agencies today, hiring mistakes would be rampant. Several candidates would be expected to write complete marketing plans without any interaction with the company or its people. Research wouldn’t be shared. Budgets would be kept secret. Each candidate’s first meeting would be in front of several people where they would be expected to present their plan. Chemistry would be inferred from how the candidates present to a group.

Hiring success is not about skills alone. Attitude, chemistry, leadership skills, personality, building bridges between departments, personal charisma, and personal interest in the product or category are what matter most. This is why companies invest so much management time getting to know their top candidates and finding out what makes them tick.

When the right ad agency joins your team, revenues can escalate and market share can advance. To make the right choice, invest time and effort to narrow the list of candidates to appropriate finalists. Then, invest more time to get to know them in a way that will help you predict what it will be like to work with them over the long haul. Resist all temptation to make the review process an arm’s length transaction. Rather, develop a three-tier process that:

1) Allows you to look at many agency portfolios. The more the merrier. You will be surprised by what you see, and this will help you to develop a quality list of semi-finalists. And, by all means, don’t require submission of 100-page capabilities statements and financial details at this stage. Chances are the best agencies will decline participation. That won’t serve the process of finding superior talent to get the job done.

2) Provides opportunities for semi-finalists to present their capabilities. This should be an open process, inviting each agency to interact with you as they see fit. This will tell you a lot about working with each.

3) Narrows the field to no more than two or three of the most qualified firms. These are the firms that will invest their time, creativity, and resources into demonstrating that they are best for you. Part of the evaluation proc