Explore More Blogs
Most businesses don't realise their agency partnership is broken until they're 8 months into a 12-month contract. By then, you've spent thousands, your team is frustrated, and exiting is expensive. The good news? These problems are visible in the first few conversations if you know what to look for. This isn't a post-mortem analysis. It's a pre-commitment checklist.
Picture this: you're eight months into a contract when you finally admit your agency doesn't understand your market. They're running campaigns that look professional but miss the mark entirely. Your internal team is confused. Your budget is draining.
This happens because most vetting focuses on portfolio and price. You look at case studies, compare quotes, and sign. What gets missed is operational compatibility and communication style. You're evaluating agencies like you're buying a product, not hiring a partner who'll be embedded in your business decisions for months.
Research shows that successful products are easy to explain, and complexity limits market reach. The same applies to partnerships. If an agency can't clearly articulate what they do and how they'll work with you, that confusion will compound once you're working together. This isn't about blame. It's a systemic issue. Most businesses don't know which questions reveal compatibility until they've already experienced a bad partnership.
If you're evaluating agencies now, the homepage at Seogrowth offers a clearer picture of what transparent partnership communication looks like.
Here's a test: ask the agency to explain their approach like you're going to repeat it to your CFO. If they launch into jargon about synergistic multi-channel ecosystems and data-driven paradigm shifts, you've got a problem.
Compare these two pitches:
Jargon-heavy: "We leverage integrated digital touchpoints across the customer journey to optimise engagement metrics and drive conversion funnel efficiency through agile, iterative campaign management."
Clear: "We run Google and Facebook ads, track which ones bring in customers, and adjust your budget towards what's working. You'll see a weekly report showing cost per lead and return on ad spend."
One sounds impressive. The other is useful. The difference matters because unclear communication at the pitch stage means unclear reporting and strategy discussions later. You'll spend half your check-in calls asking what they actually mean.
Agencies with clear processes can articulate them clearly. Complexity often masks lack of methodology. If they can't explain it simply, they either don't understand their own process or they're hiding the fact that there isn't much of one.
Good looks like this: "We start with a two-week audit of your current performance. Then we build a 90-day plan focused on your top two acquisition channels. Every fortnight, we review what's working and shift budget accordingly. You get a dashboard updated daily and a strategy call every two weeks."
That's specific. That's repeatable. That's what you can hold someone accountable to.
Activity-based case studies tell you they ran 50 ads, posted 100 times, and sent 20 email campaigns. Outcome-based case studies tell you revenue increased 40% or customer acquisition cost dropped 25%. The difference reveals whether they measure success by their effort or your results.
Look for before and after metrics tied to business outcomes, not marketing vanity metrics. "Increased Instagram followers by 300%" means nothing if it didn't change your bottom line. "Reduced cost per qualified lead from £85 to £52 while maintaining lead quality" tells you something useful.
Ask directly: "Can you show me a case study where the client's business metrics changed?" If they can't, or if they pivot to talking about engagement rates and impressions, they're not focused on what matters to you.
Activity reports are lists of tasks completed. Outcome tracking measures business impact. Just as great products fulfill specific user needs, agencies need to fulfill specific business needs. That requires tracking outcomes, not outputs.
Outcome-focused agencies structure their entire reporting around your KPIs, not their task list. They'll tell you how many qualified leads came in, what the conversion rate was, and how that compares to your target. They won't bury that information under a list of blog posts published and social media graphics created.
An agency promises page-one rankings in 60 days before asking about your current site authority, competitive landscape, or content resources. That's not confidence. That's either ignorance or dishonesty.
Legitimate timelines require discovery. They need to understand your market, existing assets, budget constraints, and goals. Research confirms that great products solve user problems with solid value propositions, but that requires understanding the problem first. Same principle applies here.
Before promising timelines, they should ask: What's your current performance? What's your budget? Who's on your internal team and what capacity do they have? Who are your main competitors and what are they doing? If they skip straight to promises, they're selling a standardised package, not a customised solution.
Discovery reveals whether the agency can actually deliver. Agencies that skip it either don't customise their approach or will surprise you with scope creep three months in when they realise your situation is more complex than they assumed.
Discovery doesn't need to take months. Even a two-hour deep-dive call shows they're doing their homework. They should be asking uncomfortable questions about past failures, budget limitations, and internal politics. If they're not, they're not serious about understanding what success looks like for you.
Some agencies charge hourly for tasks that should be systematised. Monthly reporting, routine optimisations, and standard social media posting shouldn't cost more each time they do it. If they're billing hourly for repeatable work, you're paying for them to figure out their own processes.
Compare: Agency A charges £150/hour for monthly reporting, which takes them 4 hours each month. Agency B includes monthly reporting in a flat £500/month managed service fee. Agency B has systematised the process. Agency A is treating every month like the first time they've ever compiled a report.
Research on scalability shows that efficient products maintain low cost-per-user as usage increases. Agencies should operate the same way. Ask: "What parts of your service are systematised versus custom each month?"
Mature agencies have repeatable processes and can offer fixed pricing or performance-based models. Purely hourly billing often means they're figuring it out as they go, on your dime. That's fine if you're hiring them to solve a novel problem. It's not fine if you're hiring them to do something they claim to specialise in.
Fixed pricing or performance-based models show they're confident in their process and willing to tie their compensation to results. Hourly billing transfers all the risk to you.
Ask how they track their own success internally. Do they have dashboards? Quality assurance processes? Performance reviews tied to client outcomes? If they look confused, that's a problem.
Agencies without internal measurement systems can't reliably improve or maintain quality. They're operating on instinct and hoping for the best. Research emphasises measuring product quality numerically and using performance metrics post-launch. The same applies to agencies measuring their own work.
The question to ask: "What metrics do you use internally to evaluate if you're doing good work for clients?" If they can't answer specifically, they're not managing quality. They're reacting to complaints.
There's often a disconnect when agencies measure success by deliverables completed but clients measure by business impact. Great agencies align their internal KPIs with client business outcomes. That creates accountability.
Alignment looks like this: the agency's internal dashboard tracks client revenue growth, lead quality, and customer acquisition cost, not just how many ads they ran or posts they published. Their team bonuses are tied to client results, not task completion. When their success depends on your success, incentives are aligned.
You're coordinating between their copywriter, designer, and strategist with no single point of contact. You're chasing down different specialists to get a campaign launched. You've become the project manager for their internal team.
This reveals lack of internal coordination and transfers their management burden to you. Research on usability highlights reducing cognitive loads for users. The same applies to partnership experience. You shouldn't be doing their job.
Ask: "Who will be my main point of contact and how do they coordinate your internal team?" If the answer is vague or suggests you'll be dealing with multiple people directly, expect chaos.
Clear ownership means one person accountable for outcomes, timelines, and communication. That person coordinates the internal team so you don't have to. You should spend your time on strategic input, not project management.
The difference is this: with an account manager who owns the relationship, you send one email and they sort out who needs to do what internally. Without one, you're sending five emails to five people and hoping they all talk to each other. One of those scenarios is a partnership. The other is a headache.
If you're looking for an agency that handles coordination properly, the Services page at Seogrowth outlines how structured account management works in practice.
Ask this question: "Tell me about a campaign or strategy that didn't work and what you learned." If they claim everything always works, they're either lying or they haven't done enough work to encounter real challenges.
Agencies without failure stories aren't being honest about results. Research on continuous validation and iteration shows that improvement requires acknowledging what didn't work. How they talk about failures reveals their problem-solving approach and whether they'll be transparent with you when things go wrong.
Good failure stories include what went wrong, how they identified it, and how they corrected course. "We ran a campaign targeting the wrong audience segment, realised it after two weeks when cost per lead was 3x higher than projected, paused it, and shifted budget to a better-performing segment. Client still hit their quarterly lead target."
That's useful. It shows they monitor performance, catch issues early, and adapt. Agencies comfortable discussing mistakes are more likely to catch and fix issues early in your engagement. Research on experimentation and agility confirms that failure is part of optimisation if handled correctly.
Here's your checklist for the next agency conversation:
These questions reveal compatibility issues before you sign a contract. You're not just buying services. You're evaluating operational fit and communication compatibility. Most partnership failures are predictable. You just need to know what to look for.
If you want expert guidance on evaluating agencies or need a partner who operates transparently, contact Seogrowth for a consultation. More information about their approach is available on their About page.
