Reforming the tender process: why is it necessary, and how should we begin?
2026-02-12
Category
Professional resources
The purpose of tenders is to support the selection of the right partner based on a validated professional background, competencies, and limited trial tasks. However, current practice often looks different: clients request complete strategies, detailed action plans, and creative solutions without remuneration, with tight deadlines and incomplete briefs. This is not only detrimental to agencies, but also impairs the quality of clients' decisions, ultimately hindering the selection of the most suitable agency partner. This problem is not unique to Hungary; it has been discussed internationally for years.
What do global data show?
- The cost of pitches increased by 26% between 2022 and 2023 alone, and 86% of agency professionals find the process excessively time-consuming and costly.
- The average agency cost of a PR/communications pitch ranges between three and nine million forints; from my own experience, I can say that it costs us many millions of forints to prepare a tender document in Hungary as well;
- A lack of budget transparency, "ghosting," and unresolved copyright issues are common.
- 87% of pitches are unpaid, 66% require special work; the processes are lengthy and frustrating. Again, from my own experience, the above percentages are closer to 99.9% and 75% in Hungary.
Why is this bad for clients too?
- Deteriorating decision-making: incomplete briefs + calls for proposals without a budget lead to "apple-pear" offers, which often make comparison and thus professional evaluation impossible.
- Waste of resources: long, multi-stage, unpaid processes erode motivation and make the market more expensive – rising pitch costs and overload are already indicating this.
- IP risk and trust deficits: disorderly management of submitted creative/strategic materials causes frustration (in many cases, meaning loss of rights) and conflicts.
Recommended minimum standards (in the mutual interest of clients and agencies):
- Clear brief + budget (range) already in the call for tenders; this results in more targeted, realistic bids.
- Limited, targeted trial task – with remuneration instead of requesting a complete strategy and action plan, or in lieu of their value.
- Respect for intellectual property rights: use of the competition entry only in the event of a contract being signed, with clear legal conditions.
- Transparent evaluation criteria and schedule; avoidance of unrealistic deadlines; consistent, substantive feedback to all participants.
- Comparable pricing: ask the tenderer for a seniority mix, work hour estimates, and a uniform cost template so that the "50% cheaper" offer does not hide differences in seniority/content/service (industry reports also urge the standardization of processes as a best practice—but not based on screw procurement processes).
Next step – a common market minimum at home too:
I support the relaunch of the former MPRSZ roundtable, together with procurement managers and agencies. The goal could be to jointly develop a transparent, comparable, ethical process that results in better decisions and ultimately more valuable work.
Sources:
- EACA – Don’t Give Away Your Best Thinking for Free (2025) – Cost of Pitching Survey
- PRCA – Pitch Forward research (2024): financial burden, ghosting, IP risks
- TrinityP3 / LBBOnline – State of the Pitch (2025): unpaid pitches, spec work, protracted processes
- Campaign US (2025): opaque decision-making criteria, stakeholder delays as a major frustration
