Compressing an agency search to hit a deadline tends to cut the same three things: scope definition, reference diligence, and commercial-term benchmarking. None of the gaps show up on selection day — they surface as scope disputes and misaligned incentives roughly twelve to eighteen months in, forcing many clients back into a second, costly review sooner than planned.
Every rushed RFP looks identical from the outside: a tight timeline, a clean scorecard, a winner announced on schedule. What it hides is the work that never got done. ANA and 4A’s research puts the average client-agency relationship at roughly seven years, but that average collapses to 3.8 years for clients running frequent, compressed review cycles, versus 8.1 years for clients who don’t.[1] The process meant to protect the relationship is often the thing that shortens it.
Compression cuts the same three things every time. Scope gets written in general language because there isn’t time to pressure-test it against a real brief, and PMI’s own research ties vague scope directly to scope creep on more than half of all projects.[2] Reference checks get reduced to a formality, so nobody actually asks how the agency behaves when a deadline slips or a budget gets cut mid-year. And the incentive structure in the proposed contract gets accepted roughly as submitted, because there’s no time left to benchmark it against market terms. None of these gaps show up on selection day. They show up in month fourteen, when the scope dispute starts, or month eighteen, when the relationship that looked strong on paper is quietly falling apart.
The opportunity cost isn’t just the wasted spend on the review you just ran — it’s the review you’re now forced into again, sooner than planned. ANA and 4A’s found the collective cost of a single agency review can run into seven figures, and clients select the incumbent two times out of three anyway — meaning a compressed search frequently produces the same outcome a longer one would have, at a fraction of the confidence.[3] Run that twice in three years because the first search skipped the diligence, and you’ve paid for two reviews, absorbed two onboarding curves, and lost the compounding value of a relationship that had time to mature. The eighteen-month mark isn’t a coincidence. It’s roughly how long it takes for a scope gap or a misaligned incentive to surface as a real problem — and by then you’re not fixing a clause, you’re back in market.
A note on role: We don’t run your RFP or make the hiring decision for you. What we add is the independent, subject-matter read at the compression points — scope, reference diligence, commercial terms — where speed most often trades away the thing the review was supposed to buy.
It isn’t the review itself — it’s the second review. Compressed timelines tend to under-specify scope and under-negotiate commercial terms, and both surface as relationship problems within twelve to eighteen months, forcing a costly repeat of the same search sooner than planned.
Sources Cited
- ANA (Association of National Advertisers) & 4A’s (American Association of Advertising Agencies), “New ANA and 4As Report Reveals Client-Agency Relationship Tenure Has Doubled Since 2016” (official press release, April 30, 2025) — average client-agency tenure now ~7 years (up from 3.2 in 2016); clients with frequent mandatory review cycles average 3.8-year tenures vs. 8.1 years for clients without them.
- dblspc, “Your RFP Process Is Selecting the Wrong Agency” — citing PMI (Project Management Institute) research tying unclear/vague project scope to scope creep in more than half of all projects.
- ANA, 4A’s & Advertiser Perceptions, “Cost of the Pitch” joint study, as reported by Adweek, “ANA/4A’s on the Cost of Pitching: What Agencies Need to Know” — collective costs of a single agency review can reach $1.2 million; clients select the incumbent agency in two out of three reviews.
