I must strenuously object to the startlingly unjust and untrue accusations levelled at the management of The Times for its running of the pitch which we recently won (MW December 8). It is amazing that a professional journal could be so obviously puppeteered by the sour grapes of some agency bigwigs who got fairly and squarely beaten and who, in preferring to stay off the record, have unfairly implicated everyone involved in these sentiments.
This was a long and tiring pitch for all parties, but it was meticulously run and scrupulously meritocratic. There were two stages where agencies were eliminated; contract discussions were finalised at the first stage; the work of the final two agencies was researched both qualitatively and quantitatively and all the agencies were paid a contribution for their efforts. Given that industry “bad will” could materially affect The Times’ business, I find the piece, and the actions of those who informed it, shabby and irresponsible.
Rainey Kelly Campbell Roalfe
The suggestion that the magazine was manipulated by bitter agency bigwigs ignores the fact the many of the problems highlighted in the article were expressed during the past three months, and by several of the parties involved, not simply as a result of The Times pitch. It was neither shabby nor ‘irresponsible’, but an attempt to highlight the often difficult relationships that develop during pitches – Editor