The Hidden Risks of Choosing the Wrong Pitch Consultant

Last week, ISBA published a new guide for advertisers: “Understanding Pitch Consultant Commercial Models: A guide to help advertisers make informed decisions when selecting a pitch consultancy.”

It’s a welcome piece of work, because the stakes are high.

Agency appointments, paid media investments and agency fees represent one of the largest lines on a marketer’s P&L, and running a media agency pitch without expert support is a risk few advertisers should take.

In fact, the large majority of the world’s Top 150 advertisers already use pitch consultants to guide them through this complex process. That alone should give pause to anyone considering going it alone.

But here’s the truth: not all pitch consultants are equal. The latest ISBA report makes that crystal clear, and every advertiser should pay attention.

Read on to discover what it exposed, and why it matters for you.

Why Advertisers Turn to Pitch Consultants

ISBA’s report outlines the five main reasons why advertisers bring in an intermediary:

• Expertise
• Better Outcomes
• Objectivity
• Ongoing Support
• Stronger Partnerships

A well-managed pitch saves time, ensures fairness, and sets up a stronger long-term agency partnership.

I couldn’t agree more. I have seen first-hand how advertisers benefit when they have a trusted, experienced partner at their side.

But, and this is where advertisers need to be careful, the way consultants are funded can change everything.

The Commercial Models You Need to Know

According to ISBA, there are four main commercial models in the market:

1. Client-funded:

• The consultant provides pitch management and advisory services and receives income only from the advertiser. The client pays directly for the work, ensuring the consultant’s sole accountability is to them. This is the most transparent model, with clear, predictable costs and impartial advice.

2. Agency-funded services:

• The consultant provides agencies with access to services such as networking clubs, training programmes, or market insights, and receives income from agencies for these. While not tied to a specific pitch, these payments can create perceptions of closeness with certain agencies, raising questions about independence and impartiality unless fully disclosed.

3. Win fees:

• The consultant manages the pitch and receives income from the winning agency, typically a fee linked to revenue or scope. While this reduces the upfront cost for advertisers, agencies often recover the cost through higher fees. It can also discourage participation from some agencies and create potential bias in consultant recommendations.

4. Pay-to-play rosters:

• The consultant operates a closed roster of agencies and receives income from those agencies to be eligible or visible in pitch opportunities. This can make the process look cheaper for advertisers, but it restricts access to the full market and may exclude high-performing agencies unwilling to pay, ultimately limiting advertiser choice.

On the surface, some of these models may look attractive, particularly those that appear “low cost” to the advertiser. But the report makes it clear that these models come with hidden risks:

• Agencies may pass the costs back to you (advertisers) in inflated fees.

• The agency field can be artificially narrowed.

• And crucially, financial ties between consultants and agencies create a real or perceived bias in recommendations.

That last point matters most: if your consultant isn’t 100% independent, can you really trust their advice?

Where Abintus Stands

At Abintus, we are proud signatories of the Pitch Positive Pledge, and we have always operated under a client-funded model only.

That means we are paid solely by the advertisers we serve, never by agencies.

Does that sometimes make our proposals look more expensive than others? Perhaps.

But every fee we present is fully transparent:

• Built on estimated hours per task, based on the scope of work

• With clear hourly rates by seniority

• Benchmarked against past projects of similar size and complexity

It’s a model that puts independence first. And it’s the only way to ensure that every recommendation we make is in the best interests of our clients — not influenced by hidden incentives.

The Bigger Picture

This isn’t about criticising our industry. Many media consultancies do excellent work and share our commitment to impartiality.

But ISBA’s guide rightly shines a light on practices that advertisers should be wary of.

If you’ve ever received a suspiciously low-cost proposal for pitch management, it may not be as independent as it seems.

As someone who has spent decades in this business, I care deeply about advertisers being empowered to make informed choices.

I fully support ISBA’s initiative to bring more transparency to this space. And frankly, I wish the guide had gone further and named the bad actors — because the agencies certainly know who they are.

Final Thoughts

Choosing the right consultant isn’t just about running a smooth pitch. It’s about securing the right agency partner on the right terms — and that’s where the real value lies.

The pitch process itself is the secret sauce. Not all consultants — and not all pitch processes — are created equal.

That’s why we’ve put together our guide on How We Run Media Management Pitches, where we share the framework, best practices, and steps that set Abintus apart.

👉 [Download the ebook here]

Because when it comes to choosing a pitch consultant, independence and process aren’t optional — they’re everything.