• by Sean Hargrave , Staff Writer, December 2, 2015

An interesting debate this morning in Marketing Week on the role of procurement in marketing, following Pepsi's decision to downgrade the department's power in marketing decision, made me remember the words of a wise man. He instilled in me that locks only keep out honest people. The advice was proven right when I needed to get into a shed I'd lost the key for and found it is remarkably easy to "jimmy" open a door if you don't mind paying for a new lock. A lock is useful, but you're kidding yourself if you think it's any kind of a guarantee or will perform any other role than delaying those with ill intent from stealing your lawnmower.

This totally sums up my view of procurement's involvement in marketing. To start with, it's no bad thing that agencies are asked to quantify what they charge for certain services and how they expect to be paid. It stands to reason that a brand wants to know the likely charges when it comes to commissioning a campaign. The problem arises when you think this figure is a form of protection or some kind of reassurance that this is what bills will be.

Let me explain -- and I can assure you this is drawing on real-life examples. The first problem with procurement is that it's an absolute nightmare for a smaller company to get through to qualify to work for a major brand. The second is that it works on the basis of accountants wanting to know what a typical x will cost when marketers and creatives all know there is often no such thing as a typical x. It also means that marketers can be discouraged from working with a particular agency because their price on a particular item may be higher than that of another. Typically, the big guys get through and they know what they're doing. This is further compounded by global media deals often tying brands into holding companies, forcing them to work with people they may not have selected otherwise.

So take the case of a lady in marketing who was recently handed a bill for tens of thousands of pounds more than was agreed for the creative behind a brand film and television ad. The huge London agency was the one she had to go through because they had the name and ticked the right boxes in procurement. Thing is, they knew how to play the game. There wasn't even a note or an explanation why -- just an invoice for the extra, which amounted to several tens of thousands of pounds. She could do nothing. The big London agency had ticked the right boxes, they had billed in accordance to what they said they would bill, only there was a huge overspend they didn't feel they needed to tell the client about until the invoice was questioned. The bill was paid because the agency had to be worked with. The rules were then bent for their next campaign so a new agency could be brought in. Ironically, this happened subtly and quietly. There was no announcement and certainly no procurement involved.

Trust me -- I've heard plenty of these stories to know that marketers are fully aware their company is deluding itself by thinking procurement knows best and can ensure their budgets are spent wisely. All they do is provide a flimsy lock on the shed door that can be ripped open by a smooth-talking agency executive.

Procurement's role in marketing will decline as more people get stung by agencies that know how to play the game, tick the right boxes and then bill whatever they like regardless.