The RFP process is failing creative work

There’s a particular kind of quiet that follows a rejection email.

Not the loud kind of failure, where something goes wrong on a shoot or a client changes direction mid-project. This is the low-grade, administrative kind. You spend thirty hours writing a proposal. You assemble credentials, refine your approach, price it carefully, proofread it three times. You submit it on time. And then, weeks later, a form email arrives telling you another proponent was selected.

No score. No debrief. No explanation.

I’ve been on the receiving end of this enough times to have developed some opinions about it. And I think the RFP process, as most institutions currently run it, is quietly making creative work worse.

The hidden cost nobody talks about

When an institution issues an RFP, the cost of responding falls entirely on the vendor. For a serious studio, a competitive proposal takes anywhere from twenty to forty hours of unbillable time. Research, writing, budgeting, formatting, printing or packaging. None of it is recoverable if you don’t win.

Most institutions issuing RFPs have no idea about this arithmetic. They see a free market of options arriving in their inbox. What they don’t see is that every proposal represents a real cost carried entirely by the people trying to serve them.

For large agencies with dedicated business development staff, it’s manageable. For independent studios and small creative firms, it’s a different calculation. When you’re billing by the day and spending four days on a proposal, you’re making a bet. Sometimes it pays off. Often it doesn’t.

And the more competitive the field, the worse the math gets.

The pre-selected vendor problem

Here’s the thing experienced vendors know but rarely say out loud: many RFPs go out with a preferred vendor already in mind.

The process exists for compliance reasons, not because the institution is genuinely undecided. The preferred vendor is often someone who’s worked with the institution before, or someone a decision-maker knows personally. The RFP goes out to satisfy procurement rules, a handful of proposals come in, and the preferred vendor wins.

This isn’t always deliberate cynicism. Sometimes it’s unconscious. An institution finds a vendor they like, the relationship works, and when procurement requires a competitive process, they run one without really examining whether it’s competitive at all.

But the effect on the vendor community is corrosive. The studios that keep responding in good faith are subsidizing a process that was never designed to serve them.

Why good studios are quietly walking away

The creative services vendor pool is shrinking. Not because there’s less talent, but because experienced studios are doing the math and opting out.

If a firm responds to ten RFPs a year and wins two, they’re carrying the overhead of eight failed bids. At thirty hours per proposal, that’s two hundred and forty hours of unbillable time a year. For a small shop, that’s a significant fraction of total capacity.

The firms that keep playing this game are often newer studios that haven’t done the math yet, or larger agencies that can absorb the losses. The experienced mid-size studios, the ones with the deepest craft and the most relevant track records, are getting selective. They respond where they have a genuine relationship or a strong inside read. Everything else gets a pass.

Which means institutions that lean heavily on the RFP process are systematically filtering out the vendors most likely to do excellent work.

What better looks like

Some institutions have figured this out. They keep a pre-qualified vendor roster, updated annually, and rotate competitive solicitations among firms that have already demonstrated capability. Others run a two-stage process: a short expression of interest to establish fit, then a detailed proposal from a shortlist of three. Both approaches respect the vendor’s time while still meeting procurement requirements.

The most effective relationships I’ve seen between institutions and creative vendors start with a conversation, not a document. A brief phone call to establish whether there’s a fit. A small discovery project to test the working relationship. A pilot engagement before committing to a multi-year contract.

These approaches take more effort from the institution up front. But they consistently produce better creative outcomes and stronger long-term partnerships.

The ask

If you’re an institution that regularly commissions creative work, consider what your RFP process actually signals to the vendor community.

A poorly designed process tells experienced vendors you don’t value their time. It tells them the relationship is transactional before it begins. It attracts firms hungry for any work, and filters out firms with enough work to be selective.

The best creative partners are always selective. That’s not arrogance. It’s a sign they have standards worth meeting.

The studios and filmmakers doing the most interesting work in this province aren’t refreshing their inboxes waiting for the next RFP. They’re busy. They choose their projects carefully. If you want access to that calibre of work, the process needs to be worth their time.

A phone call is usually a better start than a document.