Procurement doesn’t care if the project is a creative success. They’re not measured on client happiness, meeting launch dates, or getting the best work from the right agency. They’re graded on lowering spend, sticking to standard terms, and getting to signature with as few escalations as possible.

That mismatch in incentives explains why negotiations with procurement teams at large companies often feel robotic, circular, or even adversarial. It’s not that they’re being difficult for sport, it’s that they’re following a script designed to minimize cost, deviation, and blame.

This puts creative agencies in a tough spot. You’re trying to align the contract with the actual work and risk involved. They’re trying to tick boxes and avoid exceptions. But you don’t have to fight to break the script. Sometimes the best way to push past procurement’s process is to turn their constraints into your leverage.

Procurement isn’t the decision-maker, so stop treating them like one.

One of the biggest mistakes agencies make is trying to ​“win over” procurement. But procurement rarely has real decision-making authority. They can’t approve spend beyond certain thresholds, can’t accept risk beyond pre-set limits, and can’t make meaningful changes to indemnity, IP, or liability language. Their job is to contain cost, reduce risk exposure, and close the contract within the company’s standard framework.

So when procurement says ​“this is non-negotiable,” it might actually be true for them. The key is to stop trying to convince them and start pushing the conversation upward. When procurement says they don’t have the authority to make a change, the right move is often to ask who does have authority, what the escalation process looks like, or what information would support an exception request. These are neutral, procedural questions, not challenges, but they change the dynamic.

Focus on the business issues to drive productive discussion.

Many agencies respond to contracts by simply firing back redlines. The problem is that this divorces the contract edit from the business concern that drives the change. We recommend presenting legal edits in the context of business issues. 

For example, a common point of negotiation is the agency’s indemnification obligations for infringement. The client’s desired language often triggers indemnity based on the client’s use, rather than the agency’s work. Properly responding to this issue might look like this:

Agency shall indemnify Client for losses arising from any claim that the Deliverables, or Client’s use of the Deliverables, Agency infringed a third-party’s intellectual property rights in producing the Deliverables.

This edit limits the indemnity obligation to the agency’s screw ups (violating a license in producing the work) instead of the Client’s use (which Agency can’t control). Rather than simply sending back this edit, start by presenting the business issue first:

This engagement will require us to use some third-party licensed technologies and to create work custom to detailed specifications Client is providing. While we will of course ensure that we comply with licenses and restrictions governing those third-party technologies in producing our work, we won’t be vetting Client’s specifications (Client is in a better position to do that) or controlling how Client uses our work after delivery. If we have indemnity obligations, we want to make sure they are linked to our conduct. Are you asking that our agency take responsibility for Client’s specifications and use? 

Two benefits of this approach, First, this framing might force the discussion out of procurement (who may only have a script for dealing with edits) to a level with authority to really negotiate. Second, a question like this either elicits the answer you want or has the client saying something ridiculous (that the agency should be responsible for someone else’s behavior). This kind of dialogue before presenting the edit (with a margin comment reiterating the business point) puts the conversation on your terms, where you have the upper hand. 

This also makes it easier for the internal business stakeholder (your real client) to understand the issues and push internally. Ultimately, procurement answers to the business need, not the other way around. An internal nudge can force procurement off its script. 

Link issues to circumvent procurement scripts.

Procurement’s negotiation style is usually based on isolating each edit. They have a specific script or limit on each issue: legal fees, indemnity, limitation of liability. It’s a flat, clause-by-clause refusal. A smart way to break the script is to link negotiation points. 

For example, if you’re being asked to take on more risk in a liability clause, offer a bundle of issues in trade. ​“We can agree to the 3x limitation of liability cap if you agree to our larger deposit and 15 day payment terms.” This better demonstrates the trade-off of the client’s request. Also, procurement often has priorities in their scripts. Linking issues can force them to accept some terms to avoid having to concede on a higher priority item. 

One creative way to do this is to color code your markup. Have your lawyer make a broad set of edits, maybe even pushing on things you would normally accept. Then, color code them: yellow highlight for the issues your agency is willing to concede on if the client will accept the items highlighted in pink. Procurement isn’t usually trained to handle those kinds of trades. When you connect the dots between terms, it can force prioritization or escalation, which is exactly what you want.

Move negotiations out of email whenever possible.

Procurement prefers asynchronous communication for a reason. It gives them control, allows time to consult internally, and keeps everything comfortably non-committal. But it also slows things down and obscures accountability. Pushing for a live call — and insisting that internal stakeholders are present — is one of the most effective ways to unstick a negotiation. It is much easier for procurement to be unreasonable or obdurate in an email. It is much harder to act that way on a live Zoom call.

Use their delays to your advantage.

When procurement drags things out by sitting on redlines, declining calls, avoiding clear responses, many agencies instinctively chase them. But there’s a better move: reflect the delay back. If you’re waiting on a redline approval before staffing a project, say so, clearly and calmly. If a clause needs resolution by a certain date to keep the timeline intact, document it. The more you tie delays to project impact, the more pressure procurement faces internally.

This approach also helps shift responsibility. You’re not being difficult. You’re protecting their deadline. That framing plays well with internal stakeholders, who care about launch dates and outcomes more than procurement’s risk thresholds.

You don’t have to win. You just have to move the deal forward.

Procurement isn’t your enemy, but they’re also not your client. They’re a process function, trying to keep things neat, safe, and cheap. Getting an agreement signed often means breaking the scripts and limits that procurement relies on.

By understanding procurement’s constraints, focusing on business issues, bundling issues strategically, moving negotiations out of email, and involving your internal advocate, you can successfully put pressure on the system without causing conflict.