Business Development: Playing The Right Card

The professional services industry faces rapid change. AI tools are driving the evolution of both service delivery and support models. Private capital is becoming gradually more commonplace throughout the sector. And the reputational landscape is increasingly fraught, with polarisation in society posing risk for a firm’s culture and its social and traditional media footprints.
 

In this challenging environment, leaders will want their business development, communication and marketing functions to demonstrate the commerciality of plans and activities. Playing the right card with requests for funds has never been so important.

Evaluating proposals for yearly BD budgets and strategic marketing investments has long been a challenge for firm leaders. Some comment that they find it difficult to ‘speak the same language’ as those of us charged with managing marcoms and BD functions. This can occasionally be perceived as a cultural gap, i.e. ‘playing for different teams’. But in my experience, it is more often caused by the absence of an agreed process to present, score, and provide feedback on suggestions.

In such situations, the ‘CARD Test’ can help. This assesses the Creativity, Alignment, Return and Diligence of both annual plans and specific opportunities.

Creativity is about standing out in an increasingly saturated, noisy environment. Is a proposed investment differentiating in both concept and execution? Simply doing the same thing as everyone else, after others have taken their version to market, is unlikely to cut through. Of course, not all proposals will require creativity. Some systems or subscriptions, for example, are ‘must-haves’ and may score poorly compared to an innovative brand campaign. Nonetheless, considering whether such infrastructural tools can be used in an imaginative way, or if there are novel alternatives available, is often worth a pause for thought.

Alignment looks at the linkage between an investment and strategic or operational priorities. Does the proposed initiative support plans? Actions that divert from a firm’s direction rarely land well and may create a perceived or real alignment gap between marketing and leadership. Exceptions naturally do exist, particularly when unexpected opportunities arise, e.g. in niche sectors or segments where outsized value can be derived. Leaving such unknowns aside, testing whether proposals fit with goals whilst still on the drawing board minimises risk that confusion or concern could arise.

Return should be calculated or at least estimated for each action or investment. What does the potential payback look like, over what time horizon, and on which metrics? Without such a process, it will naturally be hard to compare results with expectations. In some situations, however, it is difficult to quantify return. Certain actions that may ‘feel right’ take years to bear fruit or are difficult to benchmark. Regardless, taking the time to outline ‘what good looks like’ and how a proposal and those managing it will be assessed, is imperative both for a firm’s profitability and the relationship between leadership and business services functions.

Diligence requires consideration of a range of risks - legal, reputational, and operational. Has the planned activity been assessed by those who understand the downsides? This applies to both new proposals and existing spend, as regulation, technology and societal norms are changing at pace. There will nonetheless be occasions where in-depth assessments are not always required. Where policies and precedents apply, when the environment has not changed, and costs and impact are limited, judgment can be used. That said, confidence of firm-wide leaders in BD teams will hold where appropriate checks are undertaken by those best placed to do so.

Thinking through each of these four dimensions individually has merit. Combining all elements into how a firm plans marketing budgets and assesses delivery has an even greater benefit. A simple mechanism for this is to use a ‘RAG-rating’ (red, amber, green). This ascribes scores, on a three-point scale, to each part of the test. A score of one point, or a ‘red card’, should be allocated when there is little or no evidence of the test being met. Two points, or a ‘yellow card’, go to those investments where a test is partially met. And three points, or a ‘green card’, would be reserved for proposals where compliance with a test is wholly evidenced.

Some find it helpful to visualise proposed investments in a table, showing RAG scores of each element of the CARD Test. This will allow competing ideas to be benchmarked against each other. In many situations, a relative threshold should apply, i.e. only the top-scoring options should be taken forward. This can be useful in allocating a budget, say, within a practice. In others, a minimum points level may be useful in assessing proposals across a firm, for example, with multi-practice investments, campaigns, or opportunities. In either case, a clear articulation of the approach and how it will be used is critical for adoption.

The professional services industry landscape is challenging, with both macro instability and rapid change within the sector. Success in building client relationships, protecting reputation, and driving profitability requires alignment across a partnership and support functions. Ensuring that everyone speaks the same language with an agreed approach to planning and measuring spend is imperative. The CARD Test, looking at creativity, alignment, return and diligence, can help ensure everyone is on the same team. Such an approach will embed commerciality, efficiency and effectiveness of spend, giving a firm the best chance of playing the right card.

This article was first published in PM Magazine in March 2026.