The standard agency model takes a percentage of what you spend on media. Read that as an incentive rather than a price: the agency’s income rises when your budget rises and falls when it falls. Every recommendation it makes about your spending is also a recommendation about its own revenue.
That does not make anyone dishonest. It makes a particular kind of advice expensive to give. “Pause this campaign” is a pay cut. “Consolidate these nine ad groups into three” is a pay cut. “You could run this in-house for less” is a resignation letter. The advice that would help you most is precisely the advice the model punishes, and people follow their incentives long before they notice they are doing it.
There is a plainer objection too. A percentage charges you for the size of your budget rather than the amount of work. A £500,000 monthly account does not take ten times the effort of a £50,000 one — often it takes less, because the data is better and the decisions are clearer. You pay most for advice at exactly the point where poor advice costs you most.
We charge a fixed monthly fee, agreed before anything starts. Our income does not move when your spend moves, in either direction. That is not generosity, it is the mechanism: when we say cut this, we are not paid less for saying it, and when we say put three times the budget behind that product, we are not paid more. The aim was never to make you spend less — it is to make sure every pound is there because it earns its place. What you get is an opinion about your account rather than an opinion about our invoice.