Publicis Wins Business Without Pitches. Agencies Must Adapt

By Rebecca Stone

In September, Publicis Groupe won PepsiCo’s media account from Omnicom without a pitch. The same month, it reportedly took LVMH’s Asia-Pacific account from WPP, again without a pitch.

Two account changes in September became an open executive debate in October. Holding company CEOs questioned whether winning business directly from clients, without a pitch, amounts to proper due diligence.

Publicis CEO Arthur Sadoun told ADWEEK in October that clients “increasingly prefer a straightforward deep dive into talent and capabilities instead of getting into a lengthy, expensive, and heavy pitch process.”

The dispute is about more than procedure. It concerns who controls access to a client opportunity, what evidence buyers need, and how agencies recover the cost of pursuing new work.

What did Publicis secure without a pitch?

Publicis has won business this way before. The September PepsiCo result transferred the media account from Omnicom. The reported LVMH result covered Asia-Pacific and ended WPP’s remit.

Together, the wins show Publicis securing business directly rather than through a conventional pitch sequence. The approach gives clients a shorter route to select a holding company, while placing more weight on the evidence used to make that choice.

The distinction matters because clients drive the choice. PepsiCo selected Publicis instead of Omnicom. LVMH reportedly selected Publicis instead of WPP in Asia-Pacific. Neither route followed a competitive pitch.

How did Sadoun explain the shift?

Sadoun framed the shift as a change in client preference. His explanation focused on evaluation. Clients wanted a direct look at an agency’s talent and capabilities without a long, expensive and heavy process.

For marketing leaders, that means the pitch’s value now depends on what it adds beyond that direct examination. A process that only adds length offers less justification for the investment.

Why did holding companies question the process?

The wins have not settled the debate. Holding company CEOs argued openly in October about whether directly winning business from clients without a pitch amounts to proper due diligence.

The underlying issue is the standard behind the selection. If clients can choose an agency directly, holding companies must show that the choice rests on proper due diligence. Otherwise, agencies face a selection process they cannot easily explain or defend.

But the debate does not establish that Publicis has displaced the pitch. It shows something more immediate: clients now have a credible alternative to the formal process, and agencies must adapt how they pursue business.

What should agency leaders do now?

Agency leaders should separate the strategic opportunity from the pitch economics. Holding companies need to show that direct wins meet clients’ due-diligence expectations. Independent agencies need a clear threshold for small-scope pitches.

No fee, staffing or win-rate figures appear in the discussion to settle that calculation. Each indie must judge whether a pitch’s investment is worth the opportunity. The answer will differ by scope, client and agency.

Agency leaders should not treat either route as settled. The September PepsiCo move and the reported LVMH result show that clients can move accounts without a pitch. They do not establish that formal pitches will disappear, or that smaller pitches will earn enough to justify their cost.

The debate’s center of gravity remains with clients, because they ultimately control pitching’s future. Publicis’s PepsiCo move shows that direct selection can transfer an account. The reported LVMH result put the same method in Asia-Pacific. The unresolved questions are due diligence and pitch economics.