<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why i dislike pitches</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ghost23.de/2008/10/why-i-dislike-pitches/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ghost23.de/2008/10/why-i-dislike-pitches/</link>
	<description>A blog about Flash and stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:20:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sven Busse</title>
		<link>http://www.ghost23.de/2008/10/why-i-dislike-pitches/comment-page-1/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Sven Busse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghost23.de/blog/?p=93#comment-53</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the comment, Gunnar. I see we both agree on that one.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment, Gunnar. I see we both agree on that one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gunnar</title>
		<link>http://www.ghost23.de/2008/10/why-i-dislike-pitches/comment-page-1/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Gunnar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:23:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghost23.de/blog/?p=93#comment-52</guid>
		<description>Interesting thoughts - but i think the problem is rather an essential one.
I think we can agree that the whole process of pitching derives from a completely different marketing channel - the classic advertising.
When pitching for an account, the creative concept is being outlined and the estimated costs for the campaign roughly calculated. This has been done since long before there was something we now call a &quot;computer&quot;.
In a pitch the customer buys the idea - not the execution. The execution is still a matter of discussion. In classic advertising the whole pitch is rather about the creative understanding of the task at hand but about its execution.
If the artwork used in the pitch does not fit the customers taste a great idea still may be executed with a different artwork.
I think the major problem of pitching for campaigns in new media channels is that a great idea nearly always comes with its execution:
Because the idea mostly is interconnected to its technical execution the &quot;artwork&quot; can not be changed that easy afterwards. This also might be one of the reasons why, after costs have been calculated for the pitch, it is nearly impossible to go into discussion with the customer whether the initial idea is the perfect one. If he says &#039;no&#039;, with the creative idea, the whole concept, implementation, technical aspects, costs estimates, timing, etc goes down the drain.
A website just isn&#039;t as simple as a billboard or an ad in a magazine. It is much harder to calculate an online campaign than sth like that.
To me the biggest problems of all is that most customers do not understand more of the technical implementation than they see on the artwork.
To me pitching simply does&#039;nt seem to be a very good concept for new media projects.
And as long as customers stick to it I guess thats why new media agencies will keep their mouth shut and stick with their pitch proposal after they won...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting thoughts &#8211; but i think the problem is rather an essential one.<br />
I think we can agree that the whole process of pitching derives from a completely different marketing channel &#8211; the classic advertising.<br />
When pitching for an account, the creative concept is being outlined and the estimated costs for the campaign roughly calculated. This has been done since long before there was something we now call a &#8220;computer&#8221;.<br />
In a pitch the customer buys the idea &#8211; not the execution. The execution is still a matter of discussion. In classic advertising the whole pitch is rather about the creative understanding of the task at hand but about its execution.<br />
If the artwork used in the pitch does not fit the customers taste a great idea still may be executed with a different artwork.<br />
I think the major problem of pitching for campaigns in new media channels is that a great idea nearly always comes with its execution:<br />
Because the idea mostly is interconnected to its technical execution the &#8220;artwork&#8221; can not be changed that easy afterwards. This also might be one of the reasons why, after costs have been calculated for the pitch, it is nearly impossible to go into discussion with the customer whether the initial idea is the perfect one. If he says &#8216;no&#8217;, with the creative idea, the whole concept, implementation, technical aspects, costs estimates, timing, etc goes down the drain.<br />
A website just isn&#8217;t as simple as a billboard or an ad in a magazine. It is much harder to calculate an online campaign than sth like that.<br />
To me the biggest problems of all is that most customers do not understand more of the technical implementation than they see on the artwork.<br />
To me pitching simply does&#8217;nt seem to be a very good concept for new media projects.<br />
And as long as customers stick to it I guess thats why new media agencies will keep their mouth shut and stick with their pitch proposal after they won&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

