—

Why Are Creative Pitch Competitions Failing the Design Industry? Maybe Because We’re Approaching Them All Wrong

In the world of design—where creativity and innovation should thrive—the practice of creative pitch competitions has become increasingly problematic. Often employed for branding proposals and other creative projects, these competitions present significant challenges that undermine the industry and compromise the quality of outcomes. Why, then, do we persist with a system that so evidently fails to serve its purpose?

A Stark Contrast with Architecture

To understand the flaws of pitch competitions, we can look to architectural competitions as a point of comparison. In architecture, competitions are regulated, confidential, and judged by expert juries, with fair remuneration for all participants. These structures ensure quality and fairness while providing long-term benefits to participating firms. By contrast, design pitch competitions are often chaotic, unregulated, and judged without the necessary expertise, resulting in a lack of fairness and poor outcomes.

The Jury’s Competence Crisis

One of the most glaring issues is the lack of expertise among jurors. Too often, decision-makers lack a deep understanding of design, branding, or communication, leading to superficial judgments. This mismatch results in choices that fail to satisfy clients’ needs while disregarding the creative vision of agencies, ultimately producing mediocre results.

A Disproportionate Investment with Minimal Return

Design agencies dedicate substantial time, resources, and energy to pitch competitions, yet the rewards rarely justify the effort. Financial compensation is minimal, and there is no guarantee of long-term collaboration. This imbalance not only devalues creative work but also discourages meaningful client-agency relationships, which are essential for high-quality outcomes.

—

Criticizing the current competition methodology is a taboo, as many fear exclusion from future invitations. This article is a manifesto to unite and better organize the defense of our shared interests, prioritizing quality over competition based on speed and cost.

Wasting Talent and Resources

With too many agencies involved, these competitions exhaust the creative industry’s most valuable resources: time, talent, and originality. While agencies pour their best ideas into proposals, only one is selected, and the rest are discarded, creating waste instead of fostering innovation.

The Illusion of Fairness

The competitive process often lacks transparency and neutrality. Agency names are frequently disclosed, and larger firms with extensive resources gain an advantage through polished, though sometimes superficial, presentations. This biases the selection process against smaller, innovative studios and undermines the integrity of the competition.

An Outdated Methodology

The pitch process is a relic of a bygone era. In a time when collaboration, empathy, and sustainability are key values, the current system feels archaic. It devalues creative work, places decision-making power in the hands of those who may not fully understand its nuances, and prioritizes speed and cost over quality and substance.

Throughout history, the best creative results have emerged from collaborative relationships between visionary clients and talented designers. These partnerships, based on trust and mutual respect, have produced enduring masterpieces. By contrast, today’s fragmented, competitive approach stifles innovation and diminishes the potential for groundbreaking work.

A Call to Action: Redefining the Rules

This article should be seen as a manifesto for better regulation and the defense of medium and small design studios in Switzerland and beyond. The aim is to foster unity in the design industry, strengthening the quality of creative work rather than fueling competition based on speed and cost.

The solution is not a mere adjustment to the current system but a complete rethinking of how creative work is commissioned. Clients must build internal competence to better define their needs and select agencies through thoughtful processes, such as reviewing portfolios and engaging in personal meetings. Agencies should be fairly compensated, with proper respect for usage rights and a commitment to transparency.

This critique draws on conversations with some of Europe’s most skilled design studios, whose shared experiences highlight the systemic flaws of pitch competitions. The design industry must evolve, embracing practices that value creativity, foster collaboration, and ensure fair treatment for all. Only then can we create a future where design is celebrated not for its speed or low cost, but for its quality, impact, and enduring value.