A noticeable shift is beginning to take shape in how marketing leaders approach the agency request for proposal (RFP) process. I have observed more organizations rethinking how they evaluate partners—not to replace the structure altogether, but to ensure it leads to a stronger, more effective relationship.
I believe this shift reflects a growing recognition that many of the challenges brands encounter in agency partnerships do not begin during execution—they’re set in motion during the selection process itself.
Why The RFP Process Is Broken
In recent years, the structure of the RFP has expanded in ways that do not set either party up for success. What began as a mechanism for comparing capabilities has, in many cases, turned into a request for fully developed strategies before a partnership even begins.
On the surface, that level of detail appears to signal rigor. In practice, however, it distorts how decisions are made. Agencies are asked to produce strategic thinking without access to internal data, cross-functional stakeholders or operating context.
The common result is work that is inherently speculative. It may be polished, but it’s not built to withstand the realities of execution. What is being evaluated is not how a partner performs within a working relationship, but how effectively ideas can be packaged under artificial constraints.
There’s also a broader question of value exchange. Strategic thinking is not a static deliverable. It’s developed through access, iteration and collaboration. When extracted upfront and assessed in isolation, both its quality and its relevance may be diminished.
A Disconnect Between Pitch And Performance
Recent industry research demonstrates how persistent this disconnect between pitch and performance has become. The 2025 Marketing Relationship Survey found that 44% of clients end agency relationships because the agency does not fully understand their business. In my experience, that gap is rarely about capability alone. It reflects how partners are evaluated in the first place, with greater emphasis on presentation than on how teams will ultimately work together.
Several structural dynamics complicate this further. Larger firms often maintain dedicated business development teams focused exclusively on responding to RFPs. These teams are optimized to produce comprehensive, highly polished proposals. Smaller firms, by contrast, typically rely on senior leaders who are balancing active client responsibilities while participating in the pitch process.
At the same time, the individuals who lead a pitch are not always the ones responsible for execution. Once a contract is signed, the team structure often shifts and the original vision is handed off. For brands, this can introduce risk at the outset, particularly when expectations were shaped by a different group.
Taken together, these dynamics reward presentation over partnership. They favor how ideas are delivered in a pitch setting rather than how they hold up over time.
This disconnect can become more visible as the work itself grows more complex. Strategy is rarely a fixed plan. It evolves as new information, technologies and constraints emerge. Yet many RFP processes are still designed to evaluate a static point of view rather than a team’s ability to navigate change.
For marketing leaders, this presents a clear opportunity. The closer your evaluation process mirrors how work will actually be developed and executed, the more likely it is to produce a successful partnership.
Creating A Stronger RFP Model
If the goal is to select partners who can operate in this level of complexity, the evaluation model needs to shift. Based on my own experience, here are a few strategies that can help marketing leaders get started:
- Use paid pilot engagements. Rather than relying on speculative work, assess how a potential partner thinks and operates within a real environment, even if the scope is limited. This can provide you with a more accurate view of working dynamics and reduce the risk of disconnects later on.
- Simplify requirements. Instead of requesting fully developed strategies, focus on frameworks, decision-making approaches and how teams would navigate specific scenarios. This can give you a clearer understanding of their thinking without requiring your agency to build in a vacuum.
- Use collaborative evaluation formats. Working sessions, workshops and problem-solving discussions offer insight into how teams communicate, challenge assumptions and build together. I've found that these interactions can reveal more about long-term fit than a static presentation.
- Reinforce continuity. Ensure the team involved in the selection process remains engaged throughout execution. This can help your company maintain consistency between initial vision and ongoing work.
In my experience, the most effective selection processes share a common characteristic: They reflect the reality of the partnership itself, prioritizing interaction over presentation and sustained fit over short-term output.
Final Thoughts
The RFP process still plays an important role in creating structure and comparability. But like many legacy systems, it has expanded in ways that no longer reflect how work is done.
Selection criteria should prioritize real collaboration over speculative deliverables. Focus on choosing the right partner over the strongest pitch.