This is the fourth post in a five-part series designed to help organizations navigate the journey of finding their ideal branding partner.

You’ve decided to hire a branding partner and received proposals from several agencies. You’ve read through the submissions and shortlisted those that match the criteria outlined at the beginning of the search. Now what? A helpful next step is to invite potential partners to a pitch meeting with your team. We suggest including 2-4 finalists you’d like to continue the conversation with. Keep in mind that the more agencies you invite to pitch, the more time your team will need to dedicate to the process.

There are a few benefits to including a pitch meeting in your search process:

1. As we’ve discussed all along, culture fit is important. If you’ve spent time vetting proposals, the agencies you shortlist will most likely all do a good job creating the deliverables outlined in the scope. The difference is really the people you’ll be working with. At this point, you’ve probably only been dealing with one or two people from the agency.  A pitch meeting allows you to meet the rest of the team members you’ll (hopefully) be working with throughout the course of the relationship. And the culture check goes both ways…we also like to meet more of your team as well!

2. A pitch meeting is another great opportunity to ask questions and allow agencies to provide clarity on the proposal they submitted. Building trust is important at this stage.

At Tenet, we like to schedule a short call prior to a pitch meeting to prepare for our time together. The better prepared an agency is in front of your colleagues, the better it reflects on the hard work you’ve put in to find a partner. Some of the topics we might discuss during that call include:

What did you like about Tenet and our proposal?

Understanding what resonates will help us focus our discussion and make sure to emphasize the points and information that are most important to your team. Were there any case studies that stood out that you’d like to learn more about? Did any steps in our approach differentiate us? Are there any holes we need to fill in?

How do you want to use our time together?

We want to ensure that our conversation is structured to deliver the information that will be most interesting to your team. Do you want to understand the process better, or talk through case studies where we’ve tackled similar challenges before? Were there any unanswered questions or concerns you’d like us to address with your team?

What is your team’s overall perception of and familiarity with branding?

It’s helpful for us to know who is attending the pitch meeting from your team and how familiar they are with branding. If everyone has been through a rebranding process before, we might not need to spend as much time discussing the details of our approach and can dive deeper into other areas. On the flip side, if there are team members who have no exposure to branding, we can spend time discussing the importance and impact that a strong brand can have on your business.

What are your team dynamics?

Are there any members of the team that aren’t on board or supportive of refreshing your brand? Do certain team members tend to ask a lot of questions, or do we need to actively engage people to receive feedback and encourage conversation? Are there topics of interest or concerns for particular team members that we should address? Knowing more about your team dynamics and the people in the room will help us have a more productive conversation and alleviate concerns for your team.

In addition to helping prepare agencies for productive meetings, there are several things you can do to make the process as seamless as possible:

Make sure your decision-makers are in the “room”

Whether the meeting is in-person or virtual, it’s crucial to have the core decision-makers attend all pitch meetings so they can interact with the agencies firsthand and ask the necessary questions. This will facilitate buy-in and ensure a successful start to the relationship with a partner decision that all stakeholders can get behind.

A scoring rubric can be helpful

Determine with your team how you will evaluate agencies to make your final decision. The criteria you outlined when starting your search is a good place to start. Not all organizations use a scoring system or rubric and prefer to choose an agency solely based on culture fit, but a rubric can help remove some of the subjectivity of the decision. This could be especially helpful if you have a large decision-making team or many agencies included in the process. If you develop a rubric, it’s beneficial to share it with the shortlisted agencies before the meetings so they understand how they’ll be judged and the criteria that are important to your team.

Prepare questions for the agencies

Some common questions we receive include: Will the team members attending this meeting be the ones actually working on our business? How do you typically collaborate and work with clients on a day-to-day basis and throughout the partnership? How do you facilitate stakeholder engagement and buy-in throughout the process? What are your expectations of us as a client during the relationship?

Check references

After the pitch meetings, it may be helpful to connect with one or two of the finalist agency’s clients to discuss their experience working with that agency. We value our clients’ time (just as we would yours if you became a client!), so at Tenet we like to confirm that we’re a finalist and seriously being considered before sharing our client’s contact information.

It’s now time to make the decision. Hopefully, the choice will be obvious and your team will unanimously agree on the perfect partner! But if that’s not the case, here are some points to consider:

• Did the agency put thought into your specific situation and demonstrate an understanding of your business and brand, or did they speak about themselves for most of the meeting? At Tenet, we like to dive into your brand as much as possible before our meeting and come prepared with initial insights. This enables us to have a more productive conversation with your team.

• Did you meet the team that you’ll actually be working with? Will there be senior-level team involvement throughout the partnership? At Tenet, we prioritize bringing the team members who will work on your business. And as a mid-sized agency, we dedicate senior partner attention to every client.

• Are you excited to work with these team members for months or even years? Sometimes, it just comes down to who is the best cultural fit. We value forming long-lasting client partnerships (our average relationship lasts 12 years), so enjoying working together may be just as important as anything else.

After you decide on your partner, it’s important to provide feedback to the agency you selected and those you did not. More on that in the next post.

Part of what makes us special at Tenet Partners is a strong belief there isn’t always one solution and that respectful debate often leads to the best answers. As HBO Max announced yet another name change to its Max streaming service last week, our team generally agreed that infusing HBO back into the name made sense. Andy Douglas captures why.

Then, as we started thinking about it more, we recognized some contrarian viewpoints that seemed worth exploring. Beth Flom dives into those.

Andy’s POV: Knowing when to say when

Well, they’ve done it again. HBO, the brand that arguably pioneered the very idea of original-content premium TV and with roots that go back to the very earliest days of cable, has rebranded its core streaming service.

What began as HBO Go became HBO Max became Max and is now… HBO Max once more. Along the way and muddying the waters was the launch of a second video-on-demand service, HBO Now, which offered access to HBO’s back catalog.

Each of these names no doubt seemed like a good idea at the time, and were, like all such moves, put in place to reflect change. The biggest one, dropping HBO from Max in 2023, was the most noteworthy.

At the time, word was that the shift to the standalone Max name was made by HBO owners Warner Brothers Discovery to indicate a broader mix of programming and to distance the brand from longstanding perceptions of HBO being focused on edgier, more adult-oriented content.

But when looked at from the outside, the Max name without HBO proved confusing. Was HBO going away? Was it now becoming sister brand Cinemax? It looked as if the company chose to throw the baby out with the bath water in the name of repositioning, sending mixed signals in the process.

A powerhouse brand like HBO, one with five decades of equity built on critically acclaimed, award-winning, industry-changing, must-watch programming is arguably something to be protected, not bypassed in the name of trendiness or market share. The task is to do no harm and build on that legacy and strength rather than leave it behind.

It appears that this realization has come home. A bold rebrand can certainly pay off if associated with a clear vision and new value proposition that resonates with the market. It can even warrant a drastic name change when it’s done right, through careful preparation and storytelling. The public will expect something really new and if the brand doesn’t deliver, it can easily fall flat on its face.

As it turned out, the change to Max evidently didn’t accomplish what its owners hoped it would. It felt as if it was change simply for the sake of change, an unnecessary move at a time when consumers are so bombarded by choice that it’s hard to rise above the noise.

This kind of misstep puts brand managers in a tough spot. In response, rather than doubling down, they’ve done what may turn out to be the smartest possible thing by reverting to the previous brand. It’s damage control to be sure, but at least it puts them back on solid ground.

Time will tell. Here’s hoping they stop the madness, buckle down and do the rebuilding needed to restore the strength of the HBO brand itself. Finding and developing the next hot, buzzworthy original property—the next Sopranos or Game of Thrones—might be just what HBO needs to get back on top.

Beth’s POV: It’s complicated

If HBO Max was going to change its name, I’d argue the mistake was two years ago when they dropped HBO, not two weeks ago, when they reinserted it to the streaming platform’s name. But the fact is, what’s done is done. Now, what to make of it? I’m not sure I see it quite as clearly as Andy does, so rather than forming a streamlined conclusion, I find myself exploring other strategic nuances.

A generational consideration: I tend to believe that the strength of the HBO Max name, and the equity it embodies, is embedded in HBO rather than Max. But I am also a GenXer who grew up with HBO meaning something very particular: quality, prestige programming. In the landscape when premier television was marked by HBO, Showtime and Cinemax, HBO was the clear leader. For many years, it owned the Emmys and was associated with pushing boundaries in terms of what television could mean. There was a time when Nicole Kidman, Matthew McConaughy and Julianne Moore were movie stars alone. HBO helped to change that paradigm.

But when I consider younger generations and those whose spending power is only now emerging, does HBO still hold that same equity? A quick questioning of a few Gen Zers indicates not. HBO barely registers. Native streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu and YouTube dominate this generation and I’d venture will continue to do so. This leads me to wonder if HBO Max is focusing on the wrong thing—or at least placing too much emphasis on it. A name can’t do everything; it’s not designed to tell the entire story of a brand. Perhaps the dollars invested in implementing the name change would have been better spent on content, on marketing and on communicating the vision for the platform to broad markets.

A shorter is better consideration: HBO. HBO Go. HBO Now. Max. HBO Max. If the platform was choosing to go back in time, why not go back to just HBO? I understand the intent initially was to differentiate between the channel and the platform, and proprietary content and aggregated content. I am left wondering if adding “Max” (or Go or Now) helps to do that. I’d venture it’s merely muddying the waters.

Perhaps using the HBO moniker alone for the streaming business causes concern with its cable business. However, the cable business is rapidly declining across the board with more and more people “cutting the cord.” This makes the calculation somewhat less risky and perhaps more palatable from a legal and regulatory standpoint.

I’m not entirely clear on where the HBO/HBO Max business is heading from a strategic standpoint, but I think we can all agree it’s toward more buyers—whether they are users or potential acquirers of the brand. For the latter, I’m certain HBO has more equity and the platform has a higher valuation multiple. Why not work to make those two synonymous?

As opinions abound, there is one thing that is certain. HBO Max is “in on the joke” and executing a funny and successful social campaign to prove it. Transparency is important. Admitting you’ve made a misstep is even more important. And if nothing else, HBO Max certainly has that aspect mastered. Bravo! (Oh wait, that’s an entirely different platform).

Is what you say in the moment really the message? Or is there something deeper?

Ask most people what constitutes a message, and they might say that it’s a statement. A collection of words. But is that really true?

Think about the last meaningful conversation you had. Chances are you can’t recall exactly what was said… but you can summarize what you took away from it. That takeaway is what stuck with you long after the words themselves faded from memory.

The thought behind the words is what matters and what resonates. The words themselves are just a way to deliver the message. It’s entirely possible to send the same message in a thousand different ways, each tailored to suit the audience and the moment.

Words matter. Choose them wisely. 

Effective messaging communicates a crystal-clear thought without needing to spell it out—and it’s more impactful for that very reason.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is a prime example. It was delivered at the dedication of what is now called the Gettysburg National Cemetery only 18 weeks after the battle, which resulted in 50,000 casualties including 7,000 dead: every one of them an American.

The text is short: just 272 words, and it took only a few minutes to deliver. Truly remarkable, in an era where long-winded rhetoric was the order of the day. Yet it was so powerful that it is now literally carved in stone on the walls of the memorial that bears the president’s name.

The message it sends is simple: that there are things worth fighting for—even dying for—and that these are what makes our nation strong. That thought rings out loud and clear, yet those words do not appear anywhere in the text.

Stay true to the idea

This notion of the message being separate from the words that deliver it is a useful way to think about brand communications. It’s an enormously powerful tool, and one that keeps your audience (and you) focused on what matters: the enduring ideas at the heart of your brand.

If you’re ever in D.C., take the time to visit the Lincoln Memorial. Stand at the feet of the great man’s statue, read those words and take a moment to ponder what they mean for all of us. That message, sent more than 160 years ago, is as resonant today as it was then.