Pitch vs Fix
Do you need an agency pitch or a relationship reset?
An agency pitch can be the right answer, but it is an expensive way to discover that the real problem lay elsewhere. Pitch vs Fix helps you work out what is happening and whether the evidence supports renewal, a practical reset or a search for a new partner.
The Short Answer
Start by defining the problem you are trying to solve.
A full agency pitch may be justified when the agency lacks a capability the business genuinely needs, trust or senior confidence cannot be restored, or performance has not improved after a fair improvement plan. Where the partnership is still viable, renewal or a focused reset may produce a better result with far less disruption. If the evidence is unclear, investigate before you commit.
The Mosaic View
The decision to pitch should follow the evidence: what has changed, where the problem sits and whether the existing partnership can realistically improve.
The Decision in One Minute
| Decision | What it means | What happens next |
|---|---|---|
| Back it | The partnership is working, remains fit for future need and has no material unresolved issue. | Retain or renew and record why. Protect the strengths, agree any conditions and use Partnership Health only where a light review rhythm would add value. |
| Fix it | The relationship is worth keeping, but specific operating, commercial or relationship issues need attention. | Use a time-bound Partnership Reset with clear actions, owners, evidence and review points. |
| Change it | The evidence shows a structural problem, or a fair improvement plan has failed. | Begin a proportionate Fit-First Partner Search and carry the diagnosis, including client-side lessons, into the brief. |
| Clarify first | The evidence is incomplete, contradictory or based too heavily on assumptions. | Use Partnership Clarity to establish the issue, ownership and future requirement before committing to renewal, reset or change. |
Before asking whether to change agency
The pressure to review an agency often arrives before the problem has been properly defined.
The issue may sit in capability, delivery, scope, trust, commercials, governance or the way the client manages the relationship. More than one may be involved, and the ownership may be shared. Until that is clear, it is difficult to know whether changing agency will improve the result.
A pitch can be the right answer. It can also carry an unresolved problem into the next relationship, while using significant leadership time and agency effort. Pitch vs Fix is designed to establish the least disruptive route that the evidence can support.
How to Use the Pitch vs Fix Framework
Use the five questions below before a renewal, agency review or procurement process. Bring together people who see different parts of the relationship, including the senior sponsor, day-to-day client team, procurement or commercial owner and relevant agency leadership.
- Answer each question with recent examples and evidence.
- Separate agency-owned, client-owned and shared causes.
- Mark each area as sound, a concern or a fundamental problem.
- Check whether any fundamental issue is a verified red line.
- Interpret the overall pattern. Do not add up a total score.
1What problem are you actually trying to solve?
Before choosing a process, separate the symptoms from the causes. Otherwise a pitch may replace the agency without solving the problem.
What to look at
- Delivery and performance: missed standards, quality, responsiveness and reliability.
- Scope and operating model: unclear ownership, gaps, overlap or work outside the agreed brief.
- Commercials and value: fee transparency, resource, incentives and value expectations.
- Relationship: trust, candour, behaviour under pressure and senior confidence.
- Capability and future need: whether the requirement has changed beyond the current set-up.
Evidence to bring
- Specific examples from the last six to twelve months, not general sentiment.
- Agreed scope, service levels, objectives, fee and resource model.
- Views from senior sponsors, day-to-day teams, procurement and the agency.
| The evidence looks… | What that usually means |
|---|---|
| Sound | The issue is specific, recent and bounded. The core partnership remains effective. |
| Concerning | Several linked problems are visible, but their cause and ownership can be established. |
| Fundamental | The stated problem is a symptom of a structural mismatch, or no credible shared definition of success exists. |
2Can the agency support what the business needs next?
Current performance is only part of the decision. The agency also needs to be able to support the next stage of the business.
What to look at
- Strategic and specialist capability required over the next twelve to twenty-four months.
- Scale, geography, technology, data, channel and integration requirements.
- Access to senior talent, account priority and the agency’s appetite to invest.
- Ability to adapt as budgets, customer behaviour and business priorities change.
Evidence to bring
- A current business and marketing requirement, not a recycled pitch brief.
- Examples of the agency adapting, investing or closing gaps.
- A realistic view of what can be built, bought, partnered or improved.
| The evidence looks… | What that usually means |
|---|---|
| Sound | Required capability exists and the agency is demonstrably adapting with the business. |
| Concerning | A gap exists, but there is a credible, owned and time-bound way to close it. |
| Fundamental | A material capability or scale gap cannot realistically be bridged in the required time. |
3Is there enough trust and commitment to improve?
Difficult relationships can recover when trust, candour and commitment remain. Without them, even a well-designed reset is unlikely to hold.
What to look at
- Whether both sides can discuss problems directly and without theatre.
- Whether senior confidence remains and day-to-day teams feel supported.
- Whether commercial conversations are transparent and workable.
- How each side behaves when delivery, budget or expectations come under pressure.
Evidence to bring
- Examples of issues being raised, owned and resolved.
- Evidence that challenge is welcomed rather than punished or avoided.
- Agency and client willingness to invest in a practical reset.
| The evidence looks… | What that usually means |
|---|---|
| Sound | Trust, candour and mutual respect remain, even where performance needs work. |
| Concerning | Confidence is uneven or tension persists, but both sides are willing to change specific behaviours. |
| Fundamental | Trust or senior confidence has collapsed and there is no credible recovery path. |
4What is the client contributing to the problem?
Poor briefs, slow decisions and unclear ownership will follow the client into any new agency relationship unless they are addressed.
What to look at
- Quality and timeliness of briefs, feedback, approvals and decisions.
- Clarity of priorities, roles, decision rights and agency ownership.
- Internal alignment across marketing, procurement, finance and leadership.
- Whether scope, budget and expectations are mutually achievable.
Evidence to bring
- Briefing and approval cycle examples.
- Changes in scope, budget, team or priorities since appointment or renewal.
- Conflicting stakeholder expectations or parallel routes into the agency.
| The evidence looks… | What that usually means |
|---|---|
| Sound | The client environment is clear, timely and sufficiently resourced to enable performance. |
| Concerning | Client-side friction is material but addressable through clearer governance and behaviour. |
| Fundamental | The client cannot yet define or support the operating conditions any agency would need to succeed. |
5Has a serious, fair and measurable fix been attempted?
A fair improvement plan gives both sides a proper chance to respond and gives the client evidence for the decision that follows.
What to look at
- Whether the problem, required change, owner, evidence and review date were explicit.
- Whether the agency and client both changed what they controlled.
- Whether progress was assessed against agreed measures rather than mood.
- Whether the issue improved, remained static or worsened.
Evidence to bring
- A written reset or corrective plan with a small number of priorities.
- Clear owners, dates and observable measures.
- Evidence of follow-through from both sides.
| The evidence looks… | What that usually means |
|---|---|
| Sound | No material fix is needed, or small corrections have worked and confidence remains high. |
| Concerning | A credible fix is available but has not yet been properly tested, or early progress needs more time. |
| Fundamental | A fair corrective plan has failed, or no workable reset can address the structural issue. |
Critical Red Lines
Most relationship problems benefit from proper diagnosis and a fair chance to improve. Some issues, once verified, carry more weight than the general pattern.
- A material capability or scale gap that cannot be bridged in the time the business requires.
- Repeated failure against a clear, reasonable and measured corrective plan.
- A verified trust, conduct, safety, data or conflict issue that makes the relationship untenable.
- Loss of senior confidence with no credible recovery path and a material impact on the work.
- A commercial or operating model that neither side can make viable.
- The agency is unable or unwilling to give the account the priority, talent or commitment it requires.
One serious red line can outweigh several positive signs. A suspicion, difficult conversation or general loss of enthusiasm is not enough on its own. Verify the issue, understand its impact and judge whether recovery remains realistic.
How to Interpret the Pattern
The framework deliberately avoids a total score because the issues do not all carry the same weight. Several minor concerns may still be fixable, while one structural failure may be enough to justify change.
Read the five areas together, then return to the four routes summarised near the start of the page. The section below explains what each route requires in practice.
What Each Route Requires
| Route | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Back it | An active decision to retain or renew. Record why the partnership remains fit, what should be protected and which conditions matter over the next review period. A light Partnership Health rhythm may help where the relationship warrants regular attention, although the decision may require no external support at all. |
| Fix it | A practical Partnership Reset. Keep the plan to a small number of changes across scope, roles, ways of working, measurement, commercials or governance. Give each action an owner, a measure and a review date, and agree what outcome would cause the decision to move from Fix it to Change it. |
| Change it | A new partner or structure. Carry the diagnosis into the search brief so it defines the missing capability, the conditions for success and any client behaviours that also need to change. The selection process should be only as extensive as the scale and risk of the decision require. |
| Clarify first | Use when the evidence is not yet good enough to support a responsible decision. Agree what is missing, who will provide it and when the decision will be made. The result may point to any of the three main routes. |
How Mosaic can help
Mosaic Advisory helps brands find, appoint and retain better-fit agency partners.
In practice, that may involve establishing what is really happening before a decision, resetting a relationship worth keeping, running a proportionate Fit-First Partner Search or putting a light health rhythm around an important partnership. Mosaic’s role is to provide an independent view and match the work to what the situation actually requires.
Frequently asked questions
When should a brand pitch its agency?
A pitch is justified when there is a verified structural capability gap, the relationship is no longer viable, the commercial model cannot be made workable, or performance has not improved after a fair corrective plan. An expiring contract or general dissatisfaction is not, by itself, enough evidence.
What are the alternatives to a full agency pitch?
Depending on the issue, the alternatives include confident renewal, independent validation, a focused relationship reset, a roster or scope review, structured chemistry meetings, or a targeted search for a specific capability. The right route should match the scale and risk of the decision.
Can an agency relationship be fixed?
Yes, when the required capability still exists, enough trust remains, both sides accept their contribution and the problems can be translated into specific changes. A fix is credible only when it has owners, measures and a review point.
How long should an agency reset take?
There is no universal period. The test should be long enough for the agreed behaviour or performance to become observable, but short enough to protect the business from drift. A focused 30, 60 or 90-day plan is often more useful than an open-ended improvement programme.
What if the client is contributing to the problem?
Address the client-side causes whether the agency stays or changes. Poor briefs, slow approvals, unclear ownership and shifting priorities will follow the client into a new relationship unless they are fixed.
Does procurement always require a full pitch?
Procurement needs evidence, fairness and a defensible decision. A full competitive pitch may be appropriate, but independent validation, benchmarking or a proportionate search can sometimes provide the required confidence with less disruption. The organisation’s own rules still apply.
How do you know when trust cannot be rebuilt?
Look for verified behaviour and impact, not just tension. Trust may be beyond repair when candour has disappeared, commitments are repeatedly broken, a serious breach has occurred, or senior confidence has collapsed with no credible recovery path.
What happens after the decision to change agency?
Translate the diagnosis into the search brief. Be explicit about the capability, working style, commercial model and client operating conditions required. Then use a proportionate Fit-First Partner Search rather than defaulting automatically to a large pitch.
Will Mosaic always recommend one of its services?
No. Back it may require no external support. The value of the framework is a proportionate decision, including a recommendation to change nothing where the evidence supports it.
About the Author
Andrew Livingston is the founder of Mosaic Advisory. He brings more than 25 years’ experience across media, agency leadership and client-agency relationships in the UK, Australia and APAC. He has led and advised on more than 100 pitches and now helps brands make clearer, more proportionate agency decisions.
Planning a Pitch, Review or Renewal?
If you are deciding whether to retain, reset or change an agency partner, Mosaic can help you examine the evidence and decide what level of intervention is justified.
Supported by AMI and the Alliance of Independent Agencies
📧 andrew@mosaicadvisory.net | 🌐 mosaicadvisory.net | 🔗 LinkedIn