Across 40+ markets a multinational insurer paid for identical agency capabilities on wildly different terms — some markets up to 30% above peers — with no common benchmark and no way to tell strong incumbents from costly ones.
VA rationalised the roster around proven partners and moved every market onto one transparent, auditable remuneration framework — common rate cards, rigorous FTE logic and performance-linked incentives — governed on a fixed cadence.
Head of Marketing Procurement, Head of Brand, Head of Marketing Operations
The strategic problem
Across over 40 markets the insurer paid for the same agency capabilities on wildly different terms; fee structures, FTE rates and incentive models had drifted apart, with no common benchmark and no way to tell strong incumbents from costly ones. Some markets paid up to 30% more than peers for comparable scopes. Fairness, transparency and comparability were impossible to assert.
Diagnose & Design
VA ran spend mapping & cost baseline analysis and market benchmarking of fees market by market – using AURA/FRC (Fulltime Ratecard Calculator) to valorise SOWs and reverse-engineer ratecards – exposing up to 30% fee variance against comparable scopes; a gap & maturity assessment then diagnosed where rate drift, FTE misalignment and opaque incentive structures had taken hold, while also identifying the partners whose value was proven and worth retaining, and a governance design (KPI framework, scorecards) established the accountability baseline before renegotiation began.
Ecosystem & Remuneration
Roster rationalisation removed the tail and concentrated spend on partners with demonstrated value, retaining proven incumbents to protect relationship continuity rather than re-pitching for its own sake; remuneration model design introduced a single transparent framework – common rate cards, a rigorous FTE logic, and a performance-linked incentive (at-risk and upside) applied consistently across markets while respecting genuine local differences; fee benchmarking & validation against VA’s external references closed the gap between best-internal terms and market reality; AURA/Scoping Tool and AURA/FRC structured the incumbent partner challenge where rate drift was most acute.
Rollout & relationship management
Contracting & onboarding locked the new remuneration framework into binding agreements market by market, retaining proven incumbents on the new terms; AURA/Planner back-planned the rollout to the two key dates and handover, rollout & commitment tracking verified that rate harmonisation commitments made during negotiation were reflected in live contracts; VA’s relationship management sustained the governance cadence through the full rollout, not just the signing events.
Execution Oversight
Bid governance and production cost validation enforced the new harmonised rate cards in day-to-day commissioning; briefing & estimate review caught out-of-frame quotes before they became approved spend; and wrap & final reconciliation confirmed realised savings against the pre-harmonisation baseline, giving the CFO an auditable closing account.
Performance Measurement
KPIs defined in governance design are evaluated via partner performance evaluation on a 90/180/360 appraisal cadence, keeping performance-linked incentives honest and the retained incumbents accountable; cost saving and cost avoidance are reported separately (today AURA delivers closure reports; full performance measurement is on the roadmap). Illustrative: 16% base-cost reduction where markets were above benchmark, 12% cost avoidance from incentives rewarding performance rather than tenure, 45% reduction in fee dispersion across markets.
Why VA
A roster cut without a remuneration framework reopens within a year; a framework without governance drifts again within two. VA fixes the structure, the comparability and the cadence together – keeping the partners that work – so fairness holds across every market the CFO chooses to audit.
Common questions
What is remuneration harmonisation?
It is bringing every market onto one transparent framework for how agencies are paid — common rate cards, a consistent FTE logic and a performance-linked incentive — so identical capabilities cost comparable amounts wherever they are bought, while genuine local differences are still respected.
Does rationalising the roster mean re-pitching everything?
No. VA retains the incumbents whose value is proven to protect relationship continuity, removes the tail, and challenges only where rate drift is most acute — re-pitching for its own sake destroys knowledge and rarely pays back.
How is fee fairness kept honest over time?
Harmonised rate cards are enforced in day-to-day commissioning, out-of-frame quotes are caught before approval, and a 90/180/360 performance appraisal keeps incentives tied to results — so dispersion does not creep back within a year.