COMMENT: PLATFORM; Testing times for PRs without the write stuff

Clients are changing the way they choose consultancies but in doing so they have highlighted practical skills, says Liz Fraser

Clients are changing the way they choose consultancies but in doing so

they have highlighted practical skills, says Liz Fraser

After years of industry moaning about the inappropriate ways in which

prospective clients go about selecting a new PR consultancy, recent

evidence would seem to suggest that clients have finally got the

message. But have they gone too far?

We don’t want to be asked to prepare a full proposal presentation

against ten other agencies, so the trend towards client companies doing

an initial shortlisting to a maximum of four, based on credentials, must

be a good thing. We also want clients to understand that while senior

consultants will be involved in their business, much of the day-to-day

work is likely be more appropriately and cost-effectively handled by

more junior staff.

Two recent briefs we have received have spelt out that the team that

pitches for the business must be the team that will handle the business.

One even specified that no senior people who would not be ‘hands on’

were to be included in the presentation. We were also asked to give the

number of hours each team member was likely to work on the account.

Clients are also now specifying that methods of evaluation must be

included in the proposal, indicating a growing awareness that PR makes a

real and measurable contribution. All this is good news. If you start

out with the client knowing who is on the business, how much of their

time he or she can expect, how the reporting lines will work and how the

work is going to be evaluated, it leaves little room for


What is slightly more worrying is the practical test on writing ability

which we have recently been subjected to. The credentials part of the

pitch includes relevant case histories and gives us a chance to show

examples of written work. We are also used to being asked for client

references or having journalists called up to see if they really do know

us and regard us highly. But is the writing test taking things too far?

In a recent pitch we got down to a shortlist of two and were asked to

interview a senior director of the company and produce an article for

one of the specialist insurance journals. The editor would judge the two

articles and the PR account would be awarded to the consultancy which

wrote the best one. Thanks to the editor and the client’s preference for

our piece, we won.

So when, during another presentation, one of our account directors was

asked to leave the room to do a writing test, while the rest of the team

presented the PR strategy, we were not overly shocked. But should we be


It appears that many clients have had their fingers burned, taking on a

consultancy which performed brilliantly at the pitch but turned out to

be incapable of writing. Whether or not we believe the days of the press

release are numbered, the ability of PR people to take sometimes complex

information and turn it into relevant messages for defined target

audiences must still be one of the core skills required.

Hopefully all PR people will ensure that they, and their executive

staff, have not only had presentation skills training, but also have the

ability to understand and identify a story and produce good copy.

Otherwise they could find all the time and energy put into a new

business proposal and presentation is completely wasted, because some

poor member of the team failed the writing test. Could be a sad end to

an otherwise promising career in PR consultancy!

Liz Fraser is managing director of Key Communications

Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Already registered?
Sign in