The consolidation decade
A long supplier list can keep prices competitive. It can also add costs that never appear on a quote, from extra freight to the hours spent coordinating a campaign.
For years, marketing procurement has often meant maintaining a broad roster and asking suppliers to compete for each job. Print goes to one vendor, signage to another, merchandise to a third. The reasoning is understandable: compare prices, keep suppliers competitive and avoid depending too heavily on one provider.
That approach can reduce unit prices. The harder part is knowing what it costs to manage. Someone has to brief each supplier, reconcile the invoices and sort out the problems between production and delivery. Those hours rarely feature in the price comparison.
The case for consolidation starts with those costs. Working more closely with fewer suppliers can make marketing procurement easier to manage and give someone clear responsibility for the result. For organisations whose supplier lists have grown campaign by campaign, it is worth asking whether the current arrangement still serves them well.
Why the supplier roster needs another look
Freight delays, material shortages and changing trade conditions have shown how suppliers on the same roster can face similar problems. Ten suppliers may all rely on the same shipping route or upstream manufacturer. To understand how much protection the list provides, you need to know where those dependencies overlap. For a marketing team, a delivery problem can mean missing a campaign launch or retail promotion.
Compliance adds another reason to look closely. Modern slavery reporting and packaging requirements have increased the need for supply chain information. Australia’s mandatory climate reporting regime began phasing in from 1 January 2025, with Scope 3 emissions reporting required from an entity’s second reporting year. Larger customers may therefore ask suppliers for emissions data even when those suppliers have no reporting obligation of their own.
For marketing teams, that can mean gathering information from agencies, printers and other suppliers whose records differ. A larger roster can add follow-up and reconciliation work. It doesn’t mean every supplier must provide audited emissions figures: ASIC allows reporting businesses to use estimates and industry averages where appropriate.
There are also costs to examine beyond administration. Separate orders can mean duplicated freight, inconsistent quality and stock that becomes obsolete before it is used. In Deloitte’s 2025 Global Chief Procurement Officer Survey, 40% of respondents said geopolitical developments had led to revised savings targets. Four in five of those revisions were upwards. That pressure makes it worth checking whether a lower quote actually reduces the total cost of getting a campaign delivered.
Competitive tension optimised the price of each transaction. It never optimised the outcome.
Tendering still has a role
Competitive tenders help establish a market price and give boards a basis for assessing a purchasing decision. They support governance requirements and keep established suppliers accountable. Those benefits remain relevant when a business consolidates its supplier base.
The question is what you compare. Tendering each job can leave internal coordination, repeated freight and quality problems outside the calculation. Assessing the broader service gives you a chance to include those costs.
A long-term partnership should still be reviewed. Keep pricing transparent, benchmark the arrangement periodically and assess service performance. Maintain qualified alternatives so there is a workable option if the main supplier cannot deliver. In Deloitte’s survey, 74% of respondents identified active alternative sources among their most effective ways to manage risk.
What closer supplier relationships make possible
Deloitte’s 2025 survey also points to the value procurement leaders see in their existing supplier relationships. The strategies they expected to deliver the most value in 2025 included renegotiating with existing suppliers at 41%, increasing supplier collaboration at 38% and consolidating spend at 34%.
The benefit depends on how the relationship works. Shared forecasts can help a supplier plan production and hold the right stock. A common ordering system can make it easier to apply agreed specifications across different locations. Clear responsibility for production and delivery gives the marketing team someone to call when an order goes wrong.
Concentration risk still needs attention. Fewer partners can leave you more exposed if one fails, and a close relationship doesn’t remove that risk. Before consolidating, understand the supplier’s financial position, capacity and dependencies, and check its contingency plans. Qualified alternatives matter here too. Before shortening the list, be clear about how supply would continue if a key partner failed.
For marketing leaders, there is also the question of brand consistency. Bringing print, signage, merchandise and uniforms under a common set of specifications makes it easier to keep colours, materials and quality consistent. Using fewer suppliers can help, provided those standards are clear and someone checks that they are being met.
That is particularly useful in franchise and multi-site networks. A shared catalogue gives local teams access to approved products, while coordinated ordering and despatch can reduce the work each location has to do. It also gives head office a clearer view of what is being ordered and where standards are slipping.
Five questions for finance and marketing
- How many suppliers are involved in our marketing supply chain, and do we have a complete list?
- What does the current arrangement cost in freight, administration, write-offs and internal time?
- When a campaign delivery goes wrong, who is responsible for resolving it?
- What supplier emissions and compliance data could we provide today if a regulator, investor or major customer asked?
- How much working capital, staff time and storage could consolidation free up, and what new risks would it introduce?
The cheapest quote and the cheapest outcome are rarely the same thing — and the gap between them is widening.
Start with the full cost
If those questions are difficult to answer, start by mapping the supplier list and the work involved in managing it. That gives you a basis for comparing the current arrangement with a more consolidated one.
Look at what each option would mean for campaign delivery, stock and the people doing the buying. Include the time spent resolving errors and chasing orders. A lower unit price is useful, but it can be outweighed by costs elsewhere.
Consolidation makes sense when it reduces that work, improves service and gives you better information about the supply chain. The aim is to find an arrangement that works across the whole campaign, with clear responsibilities and a backup if something goes wrong.
Review your marketing supply chain
Talk to us about whether fewer supplier relationships could make your marketing procurement easier to manage.
