ACC in conversation x PitchPoint

How should we see the merger between IKAg and PitchPoint?

Last September, IKAg officially launched as a company with Michiel joining as a partner. At that point, we were already offering support to agencies in their day-to-day challenges and helping companies improve their collaboration with agencies. When Chris Van Roey indicated he wanted to step away from PitchPoint, we immediately saw the opportunity. We operate in the same market. We both aim to make the collaboration between advertisers and agencies as optimal as possible. That’s about the selection process, but also more than ever - about governance, remuneration, and more. We immediately felt a strong match in our shared ambition to improve relationships between agencies and companies.

Today, Martine, Michiel and Bart together own 100% of the shares in IKAg.

What does IKAg & PitchPoint offer today?

At IKAg, we help agency owners run their businesses better. We support them in growth, positioning, operations and HR, as well as potential sales and founder exits. This is mainly the focus area of Michiel and Bart.

Then there are the services aimed at companies in their collaboration with agencies. This ranges from selecting the right agency for a given challenge, to evaluating and optimizing relationships through the well-known COLLAB tool, and optimizing agency rosters. We also see major challenges for clients today around questions such as: what do we do internally, what externally, and how do we ensure different agencies collaborate effectively? Pitch support is primarily Martine’s focus, supported by Mia (Venken, editor’s note), while COLLAB and workshops are mainly handled by Anja (De Landsheer, editor’s note), also together with Mia.

You serve both sides of the client-agency relationship. To get straight to the point: doesn’t that create a potential conflict of interest?

We do indeed have an offering for agencies as well as for companies. An agency coaching trajectory should never interfere with the pitches we organize. It is therefore absolutely crucial that we handle this correctly. I know these are “just” words, but we have a very strong ethical compass in how we approach this. You could compare it to the Chinese Walls many agencies apply themselves.

We are also very clear that, for services provided to advertisers, we are paid exclusively by those advertisers. We know that this works differently in some countries, but for us this is a crystal-clear ethical boundary. Whoever commissions us for an assignment is the one who pays for that assignment.

We believe that our proposition - being in touch with both sides - only strengthens us. We understand agency perspectives and client perspectives, and that benefits both parties.

Internally as well, each of us has a primary focus area to help safeguard this.

We are aware that we cannot eliminate that friction 100%, but we do have a solid ethical compass. Agencies that have doubts or further questions are always welcome to call us. We are happy to have that conversation and hopefully reassure them.

So working with an agency has no influence on a potential pitch selection?

Correct.

Not even in a negative sense? If you work with an agency and see areas where they could improve, doesn’t that create a barrier?

Every agency has things they do well and things they could improve. In agency selection, we are primarily looking for the best possible match. We use many different sources when selecting potential agencies: from public annual accounts to information from clients, applicants, and more. We mainly support advertisers who are looking for a sustainable relationship, and our job is to find the best match for that objective.

IKAg’s background is more rooted in digital and smaller agencies. Is the idea now to put those agencies more prominently forward to advertisers?

It’s true that PitchPoint had mainly been supporting larger advertisers, while IKAg already worked more with mid-market and digital-focused requests. There is clearly a strong complementarity there, which we recognized. But not with the intention of pushing certain agencies toward certain clients. Our mission is very clear: we look for the right agency for the client. Everything starts from the needs and the question on that side.

For example, with a large corporate client and a broad assignment, it would not make sense to propose a five-person agency. That simply would not be the right match. And that remains our primary focus.

What is certainly true is that we can now respond better to market demand. PitchPoint can expand its proposition and, for the same advertisers, more easily respond to requests such as finding a specialized CRM agency. At the same time, we can offer solutions for SMEs (tier 3) looking for a full-service agency, or for tier 2 clients with very specific digital needs.

We do our best to follow the market closely and know as many agencies as possible, but if agencies - including larger ones - feel we do not sufficiently know their story or proposition: reach out. It is genuinely our ambition to have as broad and complete a view of the market as possible.

These are challenging times for agencies. There’s a lot of discussion about the need for change in remuneration models, but we see little actual change in pitches today. What is your position on this?

Clients are also searching. Today, there is a feeling of lack of transparency among clients. We notice that some clients believe agencies can simply make more money by using AI.

May we firmly reject that assumption right away.

This is an essential issue that needs to be addressed in order to create new frameworks, but we cannot do it alone. That is why we are happy to reach out to ACC and UBA to work together on this and think through possible solutions.

Clients want robust agencies, and healthy remuneration is essential to ensure their sustainable future. Clients are not always aware of the implications of their requests, and many agencies do not fully understand the internal struggles clients face. We are happy to play a role in creating mutual understanding and finding those win-win solutions.

As a final point, we’d like to put the Pitch Charter on the table. We trust that you will continue to follow it as primary guideline.

Absolutely. Wherever we can avoid strategic creative work, we do, because we also know that credentials and chemistry meetings are often much better indicators of future collaboration success. There may sometimes be discussions about the level of pitch fees, but we fully recognize the importance and the investments agencies make.

You can quote us on this: PitchPoint and IKAg endorse the UBA-ACC-UMA Pitch Guidelines.

Thank you for that confirmation and for the conversation.