In the wake of the controversy surrounding the Bell Ontario pitch, the Institute of Canadian Advertising (ica) has called upon Bell to prove its decision was objective – or reimburse the participating agencies for costs incurred.

In a letter addressed to Strategy, Rupert Brendon, president of the ica writes: ‘The ica challenges Bell to publish the selection team’s scorecards to demonstrate the objectivity of the decision. If it was not objective, the only equitable recourse for a reputable and principled advertiser such as Bell is to fully reimburse all the participants for their total costs.’

Rumors of executive interference have tarnished what was otherwise considered a well-organized agency selection process that culminated last month with Bell Ontario awarding the creative portion of its $60-million-plus business to Cossette Communication-Marketing of Toronto over one of the other five agencies that made the shortlist: BBDO, Leo Burnett, MacLaren McCann, TBWA Chiat/Day and Vickers & Benson Advertising.

At the heart of the controversy is the belief that top executives at Bell Canada’s Montreal headquarters vetoed the first choice of the review committee and suggested that Cossette be awarded the business.

While gossip following hard-fought agency reviews often stems more from sour grapes than fact, Strategy editors and writers have had conversations with well-placed sources both within Bell Ontario as well as on the agency side that strongly support the suggestion of interference.

It is known there was some concern on the part of some agencies at the start of the review that Cossette would get the business because of its 17-year relationship with Bell Canada. The Montreal office handles Bell Quebec and, prior to the review, the Toronto agency was responsible for Bell Mobility in Ontario.

It is also widely believed within the industry that Jean Monty, president and ceo of BCE and chairman and ceo of Bell Canada, and Claude Lessard, president of Cossette, are well-acquainted.

Bell Ontario is said to have assured all the agencies involved that the eight-person selection committee – that did not include Monty – was empowered to choose the right agency for Ontario.

Now, some in the agency community are feeling angry and betrayed at the thought that someone not on the selection committee or privy to the presentations, may have had a direct impact on the choice of agency.

Their outrage at this perceived insult was further fueled by comments attributed to Monty in a story that appeared in the July 23 issue of The Financial Post.

In the last three paragraphs of a story seemingly unrelated to Bell’s agency review, Monty appears to deny that he personally intervened to award the advertising contract to Cossette. But the last paragraph seems to contravene that denial:

‘Monty did not say Cossette was the top company according to the Bell management committee deciding the issue. ‘They were in the top three,’ he said. ‘In my mind, they were the best. I want to build strong brand recognition based upon the Bell name.”

Josee Goulet, group vice-president consumer markets and sales for Ontario and head of the selection committee, says that both Monty and John MacDonald, president and coo of Bell Canada were made aware of the selection committee’s top three choices.

She says they were given an analysis of the top three agencies and that Monty and MacDonald provided the selection committe with their input.

Goulet also refused to confirm that Cossette was the top agency following the committee’s review.

‘We said, ‘We’ve got three here, each one with strengths in areas that are better than the other two,” says Goulet.

‘At the end of the day, it was myself, Rudi Engel (group vice-president, business markets and sales) and John Sheridan (executive vice-president, Ontario for Bell Canada) that made the decision.’

Goulet says although it was not practical to have Sheridan involved in every step of the review, he was kept informed throughout and was a knowledgeable participant in the final discussions prior to the decision.

At press time, Rupert Brendon of the ica had been unable to discuss the matter with anyone at Bell before issuing his statement. He had, however, talked to all the agencies involved and says he is satisfied that there is cause for concern on the part of ica.

Ian Saville, executive vice-president of Cossette, the winning agency, says the letter is an over-reaction on the part of the ica and that it doesn’t take all the facts into consideration.

‘I’m very surprised by it. I’m not sure where the motivation for it comes. From everything I’ve been exposed to, I think it was a very well-managed pitch.

‘I think picking an agency for a $60-million-plus business, to go into the telecommunications war of the future, is a very large decision for an organization and it involves many people, especially people at senior levels of a company. It’s just too big and important a decision… ‘

Saville adds: ‘It’s a big thing to win and also a big thing to lose. I think it’s not so easily swallowed.’

Sidebar: ICA calls on Bell to do the right thing

Below is an excerpt from an official statement by Rupert Brendon, president of the Institute of Canadian Advertising, on the Bell Ontario pitch:

‘ICA has been told by various different sources that Bell’s search and selection team’s choice was overturned by a higher authority not involved in the process.

‘If true, this practice has grave consequences for advertiser/agency relations in general and the new business process in particular.

‘The ICA challenges Bell to publish the selection team’s scorecards to demonstrate the objectivity of the decision. If it was not objective, the only equitable recourse for a reputable and principled advertiser such as Bell is to fully reimburse all the participants for their total costs.’

Sidebar: Inside the Bell Ontario pitch

The final stage of the review began with a briefing on May 25. The six agencies had three-and-a-half weeks to prepare the assignment. During that time, separate media presentations were made to a sub-group of the selection committee which drew upon the expertise of a media consultant.

The assignment was as follows:

1. Assess Bell’s position as it prepares for local telephone market competition. The agencies were asked to review Bell’s position, assess its current positioning statement, and suggest a course of action in preparing for local market competition.

2. Develop and launch a product bundle for the residential consumer market, and suggest a launch and media plan for that particular bundle. Creative presentations were to be in black and white only, at the risk of disqualification. The agencies were given two budgets for media placement, one for $2 million and one for $8 million. The purpose of this section was to highlight agency innovation.

3. Demonstrate business-to-business capability. The agencies were asked to present two case studies showcasing work they had done for other clients, in order to illustrate strategy, execution and results.

4. Develop a media piece. The agencies were asked to prepare an executive summary of the media presentation they had already made to the sub-group specifying media capability, clout and creativity. The goal was to measure media effectiveness, efficiency and creativity.

5. Create a transition plan. The agencies were asked to show how they would absorb the Bell business into their organization and how they would structure and manage it.

Sidebar: Despite controversy, agencies impressed with review process

Although news of Cossette’s win has been tarnished by controversy, the agencies taking part in the Bell Ontario review praised the well-organized structure of the process and the eight-person selection committee behind it.

All the agencies entered the contest with a feeling of anticipation caused by Bell’s willingness to change.

While four incumbent agencies took part in the review, Ann Boden, executive vice-president, national media director and president of McKim Media Group, says they were given the feeling that the client was starting with a clean slate, in part because most of the people on the Bell Ontario account were new but also because the company was readying for a new competitive environment.

‘No one was on the committee who hired us five years ago, so it was ‘from scratch’ for us. too,’ says Boden, adding the committee approached the review in a very structured way and further, hired a media consultant to help them through the process.

‘That helps make it a level playing field. You couldn’t pull the wool over their eyes because they had a consultant who could evaluate [the pitches] from a pragmatic standpoint.’

For Boden, the outcome of the Bell review was bittersweet. While she was thrilled that McKim Media Group retained the media buying assignment – they’ve had the Bell Ontario business for the past five years – she says she was disappointed that BBDO Toronto did not get the call for the creative portion.

Tony Miller, chairman and ceo of MacLaren McCann, agrees that Bell Ontario put a lot of thought into structuring the review, adding they knew what they were looking for and were very clear in identifying their priorities.

‘I was impressed with the process they tabled and I think everyone else felt the same way.’ PS

Miller says while the agency was disappointed not to win, it wasn’t an incumbent, so felt free to say exactly what it thought.

‘It fell into the nothing-to-lose category, which of course is a good position to be in with such a big piece of business.’

John Hayter, chairman and ceo of Vickers & Benson Companies, says the agency felt it was longest shot in the review, and although an incumbent [the agency had the Expressvu business] was the least well-known of the four incumbents.

‘When we first were invited to be part of the long list, we felt this was a big opportunity but really questioned whether we were a legitimate competitor, whether we would really have a good shot at it.

‘If we were going [to win] we had to knock it out of the park, we would have to be so much better than everyone else.’

Hayter says the agency felt it had a winning idea, an unconventional one, but one that had the potential of adding hundreds of millions of dollars to Bell’s sales and profits by winning over a hard-to-reach segment of the telco’s customer base.

Although the agency feels it did hit it out of the park, Hayter is having some second thoughts.

‘If we had spent more time getting them to understand the potential of the solution, rather than spending it on the solution itself, I think they would have looked at it differently.

‘It’s huge, and I hope they do something with it.’ PS