As brands increasingly rely on strategic communications to build reputation and navigate complex stakeholder environments, the Request for Proposal (RFP) process has become a critical gateway for selecting agency partners.
However, the current ecosystem in the industry believes that the current system often places an unfair burden on agencies, which invest substantial time, strategic thinking and creative ideation into pitches without any guarantee of business or compensation; sometimes the ideas are stolen without even being given credit.
With concerns ranging from procurement-led evaluations and prolonged pitch cycles to the absence of reimbursement for intellectual effort, communications professionals are calling for a more transparent, structured and equitable RFP framework.
In Brand Communion's flagship event, Convergence Summit 2026. The panel discussion was organised on the topic, "Rulebook: How RFP Needs Rationalisation So Agencies Get Their Credit for Ideation".
Moderated by Tarunjeet Rattan, Managing Partner, Nucleus PR, the session featured Neha Mehrotra, Managing Director, AvianWE, and Abhinav Kanchan, President & Group Head, Puravankara Ltd.
Procurement-led RFPs remain a major concern
Sharing her perspective as an agency leader, Mehrotra said RFPs have evolved in both positive and negative ways over the past few years.
On the positive side, she noted that brands are increasingly issuing structured briefs and even case studies instead of vague mandates, allowing agencies to provide more focused strategic solutions.
However, she said a growing number of RFPs are now driven primarily by procurement teams rather than communications professionals.
"We don't sell commodities," Mehrotra highlighted, arguing that communications services cannot be evaluated in the same manner as products purchased through procurement processes.
She added that the best RFPs are those where procurement and communications teams work together, while procurement-only discussions often fail to appreciate the value of strategic communications.
Industry mindset is changing, but enforcement is missing
Kanchan observed that concerns around agencies' unpaid intellectual effort are not new but have only recently begun receiving wider industry attention.
He pointed out that trade bodies across the world, as well as in India, have started recognising that agencies deserve compensation for the "sweat equity" invested during pitches.
According to him, the industry's mindset is shifting towards acknowledging that agencies should be rewarded for the value they create during the RFP process.
Reflecting on his own experience, Kanchan recalled how, decades ago, organisations openly celebrated extracting ideas from multiple agencies without paying for them. He contrasted that approach with the current environment, saying businesses must move away from a "zero-sum game" and instead focus on collaborative partnerships.
He suggested that companies should initially shortlist six or seven agencies, narrow the list to three finalists and only then invite detailed strategic pitches, rather than asking dozens of agencies to participate in exhaustive presentations.
PRCAI charter recommends structured RFP process
Explaining the rationale behind the PRCAI Client-Agency Charter, Mehrotra said the framework was created after extensive consultations with both chief communications officers (CCOs) and agency leaders to ensure that it reflected the concerns of both sides.
Among its key recommendations, the charter advises organisations to invite no more than five agencies in the initial stage and reduce the final shortlist to three. It also recommends that brands clearly specify the available budget, define timelines for concluding the RFP process and distinguish between genuine agency selection exercises and procurement-led benchmarking exercises.
Mehrotra noted that agencies need budget clarity to determine whether they should propose high-investment campaigns or cost-efficient solutions. She also criticised RFPs that continue for several months without a conclusion, saying agencies often commit significant resources during prolonged evaluation periods.
Charter also places responsibility on agencies
Mehrotra emphasised that the charter is not one-sided and also outlines expectations from agencies.
She said many communications leaders have expressed concerns that agencies sometimes misunderstand briefs, deploy senior teams during pitches but assign different personnel after winning the business, or fail to communicate leadership transitions in advance.
The charter, she said, encourages agencies to demonstrate genuine commitment during pitches, maintain continuity of the proposed team and ensure proper succession planning whenever key team members leave an account.
Pitch reimbursement could streamline the process
Kanchan argued that voluntary guidelines alone may not be enough and called for stronger enforcement mechanisms.
Citing Malaysia's advertising industry, he pointed to a system where shortlisted agencies receive a reimbursement fee to cover administrative and creative costs incurred during the pitch process. Under that framework, the winning agency returns the amount after securing the mandate, while unsuccessful finalists retain the reimbursement.
According to him, similar mechanisms, backed by trade bodies, could help improve transparency and discourage exploitative pitching practices in India.
Supporting the idea, Mehrotra said introducing a formal rejection fee would significantly improve the RFP ecosystem.
She revealed that several corporate communications leaders involved in drafting the charter had already agreed that agencies should receive fair compensation if they are not selected.
Mehrotra added that meaningful change would ultimately depend on both agencies and clients choosing to uphold the charter's principles.
