The call for tenders - background ... and 
Little feedback lived in a past life, with, as they say, from advertisers. Large advertisers, agencies like those put the logo on the page on their website, those who not only exciting communication issues in terms of scale but also ... a budget.
This experience is participation in several tenders in the organization itself and as a juror. It was not so devices influence of global communication but even commercial. While older executives are bent and forced labor for the year I rejoiced, as a young professional to assess the boldness and creativity agencies that seemed to belong to several categories:
- Names essential
confident they are of 2 types : those who want the market and those who clearly do not seem to really want it.
The first deploy the heavy artillery. They move their media officer, often wrote a popular book, we see on TV is the star. Her presence is proof of esteem, desire to win the market and his charisma is often relentless.
Implacable also the logic of the demonstration and articulation of internal resources. They can do everything and do it well. QED.
The second principle is likely to meet, make a floor or two trainees on a proposal (and presentation) wobbly, they rely on a name, references. Clients they have and do not really need to gain more. Duly noted.
- The outgoing
Curiously, in recent weeks, we felt more at home availability and creativity. If based on a thorough knowledge of customer's problems (and its representatives), they suffer from a sense of fatigue and a need for novelty.
Their consultants are in any case much more present for some time, but also much more interesting ...
The recommendation is in any case often exciting, characterized by a serious consideration of real issues and a good ability to sense the business needs (in fact nothing replaces the fact of the practice since X years.)
- Underdogs with long teeth
Some are almost touching sincerity and goodwill. They sometimes go on to acknowledge with some humility calculated they are small, to better assert their reactivity and heart they put to work. Often creative, they are sometimes beside the point. When they are not, it starts getting very interesting creative, intelligent, responsive and ... cheap.
Overall (and this is the main attraction of the year), the proposals provide interesting responses and high quality. From there, the selection criteria vary:
- The ownership of the problem and understanding the needs, context. If this aspect
not enough, it is fundamental because it follows all the reasoning ... Conversely, I happened to study analyzes brilliant (really), followed by strategies too small. Here, too bad. It is certainly very interesting and sometimes stunning to see themselves in an inventory compiled by people outside the company. And it's a good sign.
- Creativity
careful dressing. An illustrated list
tools may well modeled attract the eye but they must enroll in a real sense and by appropriate reasoning. When this happens, the beautiful, big is a plus, obviously.
- Presentation
Do not be impressed by the packaging. We see everything from record-coil-to-spiral-treatment-of-text-word (this type of file can be connected quite effective and elegant ... but it is not always) the work of art to perfect the model and modern offset printing paper 300g, selective coating and Pantone unlikely. Difficult to generalize, but in my case, the most interesting approaches were presented in a clean, efficient, simple. Coincidence perhaps.
From the standpoint of providing oral, personal, pragmatic presentation, illustrated and nice suits me perfectly.
- The overall quality of the bottom
most important criterion, of course. A logical progression of type understanding of the context / problem relevant / intelligent and appropriate recommendation, it's pretty unstoppable. Often lack precisely that logic, continuity and some work, however good, are too homogeneous.
criteria, there are others. And not least, like money. The real difficulty at the end of the exercise is to say that X and Y are very good but that Z is less expensive. And here they are neither creative nor the size nor consistency talking ...
