Welcome to another episode of Metric Masterminds!
These weekly chats are digital marketing deep dives from our resident experts at Metric Digital.
(If you missed our last episode, you can still dig in to our post about cross channel marketing strategies.)
Metric's mission is to make sure marketing is done right. We lose sleep when we see marketing done poorly, and we’re absolutely driven by a desire to continue to build a modern agency that doesn’t make these same mistakes.
I sat down with COO Ryan Markman & Sales Director Jonathan Torre to deep dive on the shifting ad agency landscape. Topics include:
1. The historical evolution of the agency world
2. Challenges in the modern agency model
3. Head slapping anecdotes from clients and peers
4. How clients can take back control
5. Experimenting with new marketing tools
6. How companies can protect themselves
7. The rise of adtech/martech and its impact
8. Unethical outsourcing
9. Lightning round
# # #
Scott: What are some of the biggest challenges in the marketing agency world right now?
Ryan: There are a few different categories that these problems fall into. First, the cut and dry issue. Clients realize, oh wow, this is actually a really sketchy, questionable, fraudulent agency. For example, a third party programmatic display ad tech platform that says you're appearing on certain sites, when they're really putting the impressions on sites that clients would never want to be on. That’s simply wrong.
Another category of problem is a lack of expertise. Companies may engage an agency, asking them to do a million dollars a month. But that firm won’t really have those capabilities, so they do the best they can, but actually ended up wasting their client's money.
The final category is somewhere in between the two. Questionable business practices. For example, “Hey, I'm an agency and I'm not going to let my clients have access to their Facebook ad account or their Adwords account.” Now, as a businessperson, you can see the benefit of that. Limiting access means it would be harder for a client to fire you if they can't see what you're doing. Certain agencies could think of it as a customer retention tool, but at the end of the day, it’s bullshit. You’re intentionally hiding what you're doing and you're getting retention by putting up walls and tricking the client rather than providing value.
Scott: Our data shows that our clients average working with 3.5 other agencies before working with us. That’s insane! What happens when they show up tattered and torn?
John: They’ve had a bad experience, particularly the smaller brands. Because with agencies, there are a certain amount clients have to spend in order to get service. And so, depending on who you partner with, you can’t get the service and results you might want.
Take saas products that are geared around Facebook and Google. Martech is a massive industry. They tend to use some kind of proprietary algorithm that just bids on the keywords. Other than that, there’s not much going on. It lacks the customized service. Meaning, by the time our clients show up, they've had very bad experiences.
As an account executive, my job is to have a frank conversation about why they've had those experiences and how we're different. Clients get it for the most part. However, by the time a brand has already gone to three agencies involved in bad faith, then going in for the fourth, it’s an uphill battle. They’re usually looking at internal hires for the marketing work because they think that gives them the control they lacked with the, with the previous agency or software platform.
Ryan: Agreed. And what John's talking about here is what ends up happening a lot of the time. Clients just get thrown into the same system that a thousand other companies are getting thrown into, so there's no customization. This might work for some companies, but not all of them. Yes, I think technology is only going to continually continue to be a bigger and bigger part of how performance marketing is managed. But it’s also used often as a smokescreen.
“Just use our proprietary algorithm,” they say.
But it’s often nothing that sophisticated. Why? Because they can't afford to have people servicing it. They're charging far too low of rate. They can't have actual people who are actually doing the work. And so, machine learning and the technology will be a huge part of this continued evolution. But it breaks my heart that marketing agencies are hiding behind a mirage.
John: Yeah, and it depends on the company. Most of the saas companies are so profitable for a reason. The margins are thin and it isn't an out of the box product. It pretty much starts working in three to four business days, and now a brand is on Google or Facebook. Companies can have success with it certainly, but more often than not, they’re going to falter. The company is only focused on top line sales. And it’s extremely difficult for them to really customize a strategy, consider if the client is the right fit or if their unique needs are being served.
Scott: From a historical context standpoint, let's talk about the narrative arc of marketing agencies and how they've changed over the last ten or fifteen years.
Ryan: Advertising agencies have evolved significantly. With the shape of the world today, the industry has now consolidated to four holding companies: Omnicom, WPP, Publicis and IPG. They’re basically buying up all of the small and medium sized agencies that exist out there and creating a portfolio.
In the past, you had agencies that were more independent and could do whatever they want. Now, most of the big agencies in the world that work with Fortune 500 brands on a consistent basis are owned by one of big four.
Scott: What challenges does that evolution create?
Ryan: The problem is, holding companies are very much a low risk, short term, low growth, stability oriented entities. They want all of their portfolio companies to deliver consistent growth in revenue and profit. Problem is, they're in a world that's rapidly changing and they're not well equipped to exist it.
What they need to do is totally blow up their model and go and invest in things like digital, but they don't have capabilities in. Their holding companies won't allow them to do that. They say: “Hey, hold on to every print dollar you can hold on to every radio dollar that you can!” These huge companies historically have done great things, but now aren't thriving with the newer, more important things. That’s a major evolution.
John: Coming along with that evolution, there have been a lot of agencies like Metric Digital that have popped up in the last five to ten years. We serve these nascent needs that the big guys struggle with. Like Facebook advertising, Google Adwords, and so on.
The general idea of performance advertising is something that a lot of these agencies, which are typically more production and creative focus, don’t necessarily have the capabilities of. The other thing is there, there are a lot of companies that do what we do, at least on paper. That could be anything, for example:
1. A giant web agency whose client said, “Hey, we want you to buy Facebook ads for us,” and they said, “Sure."
2. Somebody who did marketing at a startup and started taking on their own clients.
3. The “agency,” who is really just be one person doing some freelance work.
Scott: How do these trends have an impact on both the client and the agency?
Ryan: It doesn't take that long to see that there are issues. Look, every agency or marketing solution should be given some time to work. But with the tech provider example, let’s say your company needs help with something very specific. And you're just not getting the support that you need. It probably means no improvements are being made on the agency’s end, and you’re being taken along for the ride.
After all, few agencies are performance oriented. They don't even really know how to track this stuff in the most granular way. So they might not even know that their performance is wrong. Meanwhile, their clients are getting bad results. And they can just say, “Hey, here are the ads we made, enjoy.”
But if the client doesn't know how to really evaluate this stuff, they might say, “Cool, this agency is really doing great work for us.”
Maybe or maybe not. But if you're looking at performance, and you're looking at actual service level, you usually tell within a few months if you’re in trouble. Although some clients get two years down the road with an agency and realize, "Damn, we worked with this agency for two years and we just now realized how they've really been doing nothing all this time."
John: There's another tier to this trend. Let’s say there is an agency to help a client go from zero to five thousand a month in revenue. That's awesome. But that agency may or may not be the right partner to help the same client get to fifty thousand a month. Clients sometimes have to admit, "Look, this agency helped us out, but now we have reached the limit of what they know."
Scott: Do you have any standout comments or stories clients around these trends?
John: The most common pattern we see around performance is when agencies run it off their own business Facebook page or Adwords account. It’s smart for the agency, but once the client leaves, they have no access to that data. We're talking maybe two years of data being built up that now can't be transferred. We believe it should always be released to them.
But clients don't even know to ask for this, believe it or not. It always shocks me. Just how many companies enter into engagements where they don't have access to the data. It’s an issue of education. Clients simply don’t know to ask.
Scott: So there’s a key issue. What should clients be asking their agencies?
John: Clients should always be mindful of who's going to be handling their account during onboarding. Doesn’t matter who you are or how much experience you have. You can pretty much tell if you're getting quality service right away.
If person on the first kickoff call is clearly reading from a script and sounds canned, be careful. If agency rep is asking the same questions that they ask everyone, be careful. But if they’re asking more thoughtful questions, you’ve made a smart decision.
What’s more, be careful about having too many people running point. Some of the adtech companies bounce around clients to several account managers, since they have a high churn rate. But they rarely respond quickly.
Some questions brands can ask to avoid these pains early on are:
1. What does this relationship actually look like?
2. What is on the client roadmap?
3. Can we engage with the account manager thoughtfully?
Get those questions answered, and you can be assured going forward. Just remember, the larger the agency is, the more that perception management is important for them. Clients should always be mindful of who's going to be handling their account during onboarding. Doesn’t matter who you are or how much experience you have. You can pretty much tell if you're getting quality service right away.
If person on the first kickoff call is clearly reading from a script and sounds canned, be careful. If agency rep is asking the same questions that they ask everyone, be careful. But if they’re asking more thoughtful questions, you’ve made a smart decision.
Ryan: Kevin published an extensive article about questions to ask your Facebook agency, but I’ll jump in too. The first thing is, if a client doesn’t know how to ask these questions, they should talk to someone like Metric Digital. Especially the super technical questions, just to see how their potential agency responds on it.
Next, here are a few others to consider.
1. Who owns the actual assets?
2. How do you track performance?
3. How will that information be delivered to us?
One of the benefits clients find that separates us from other agencies is that we give a high level of manual reporting. As opposed to somebody saying to the client, “You spent $72,000 on Facebook this month and had 7,000 transactions. Congrats. See you next month.”
John: And look, even if you don't want to be bogged down in the details, at least find an agency who splits data out into a highly granular level. It might sound something like this:
"Our tactic, audience, creative and strategy drove x percent of the value, while this other one drove y percent. Looks like this strategy is not working so well. Let’s move more budget into that one and then we’ll try z next month."
The upside of granular reporting is this kind of structure. Always ask your agency if they structure the account and naming conventions to track everything in really smart way.
Ryan: Now, if your company is a big account, you're totally within your rights to ask for an audit. Brands spending fifty thousand or more a month might ask agencies this: “What would you do differently? Where are our biggest areas of opportunity?" That's going to be a smart way to see how much they really know what they're talking about.
Scott: Do any specific anecdotes come to mind of negligent agency performance?
Ryan: One story comes from a women's accessories company. It’s a bran that sells primarily sells bags and iPhone cases.
One particular meeting, we heard the client literally slap their forehead on the other end of the conference call.
Why? We took a look at their Adwords account and a huge percentage of their spend was going to key words that were about iPhone cases, which was a part of this company's business, but a low revenue, low margin item for them.
And not only that, not only was more spend going on those types of keywords, but performance was horrible. They were performing way worse than the handbags. And so, hearing that so much of their spend was going towards iPhone cases, it was clear that their agency wasn’t looking that closely.
Scott: Speaking of that, let's talk more about account manager incentives. What are some red flags?
John: A shrewd but toxic account manager at a huge agency is someone who keeps distracting clients from performance. They show up and say, “Look at all this great creative that we have for you!” But it’s actually like the doctor tapping at the black spot on the x ray saying to the patient, “Look at this, look at this!” Meanwhile, five inches below is something more harmful to their health.
Ryan: Whoa, that got kind of morbid.
John: Maybe, but the point is for brands to make sure they have defined goals for each service that they’re getting, and to make sure that the agency is hitting it. Because who really knows what the agency is good at? Are they good simply with this one type of client in this particular segment, or are they trying to be everything to everyone?
Something I say to clients all the time is:
“If you try to be everything to everyone, the company won't be anything to anyone.”
The danger is, when a company is focused on top line sales, my mantra doesn't matter.
Ryan: You just triggered a few more stories. One was a large apparel company that we audited. We went in and saw that $80,000 was spent on one campaign with no tracking set up. That's a big no no in our book! Obviously, they were not happy to see that.
Scott: What do you think led to that?
Ryan: Most of these case studies come from inactive oversight. But I don't think any of it is malicious. Reminds me of another tracking story. We worked with this events company that did not have their tracking right at all. They weren’t able to see how many tickets were sold through the website, how many came from Facebook, how many came from Adwords, and so on with other channels. Perfect example of a time when an agency really should push clients on measuring and tracking.
As we love to say here at Metric, "If you can't measure it, you can't optimize it."
And look, as a client, you're only able to do what you're able to do. But as an agency, we're not doing our jobs if we're not pushing clients to set up structures like tracking. If we’re not doing everything in our power to help these brands optimize, why are we here?
Scott: That makes me wonder if some clients are naturally averse to experimenting with new marketing tools. Thoughts?
John: Any brand, or any marketer at the company evaluating different agencies, must educate themselves on what the services actually are. Part of the reason why many brands don’t try performance marketing systems is because they simply don’t know anything about it.
I talked to an awesome company who launched a successful Kickstarter campaign yesterday. We pulled up their Facebook Pixel, and I told them exactly what the problem was.
But they didn't seem to think it was a problem.
Sorry, but this is a very real problem. It's adversely affecting your retargeting efforts, I told them. It’s not tracking properly.
And yet, since the client didn’t know what that meant or how to look for it, it was impossible to even ask. It almost doesn’t matter how big the problem is, even if you see it right in front of you.
Scott: Okay, so what do these brands need to know going into an agency relationship?
Ryan: Here’s my advice to companies who are evaluating different proposals for agencies. Educate yourself more than you think you need to. That’s the mistake that a lot of companies make. Especially growth stage brands. They get an injection of capital, and capital is pretty loose these days, and they immediately spend it on marketing. But they don't do their research first.
Of course, big companies aren’t immune. It’s been really valuable for Metric to work with both growth stage brands and also Fortune 500 brands. The agencies who only work with massive, slow-moving enterprises are, by their very nature, going to be a few years behind. They just don't have the freedom of the ability to test that new feature that Facebook just launched. But that’s what we do all day. For all types of clients, regardless of size or budget.
Scott: Many of these agencies or saas programs appear to be autopilot. Which means they don’t experiment as much. Can you talk about the willingness to test with new approaches to digital marketing?
Ryan: On one hand, it’s negligence due to lack of experience. One of the things that we do at Metric is hold our account managers, well, accountable. Frankly, one of the ways that they are evaluated as team members is how good of a job they're doing leading the client.
In terms of strategy, in terms of new things to try, it’s all about ownership. Clients want to be led. And we’re in a truly unique position as an agency that works with really great brands. We have the opportunity to see a lot of what's working out there. But if we're not reacting to all of the new announcements that Facebook makes, and try and testing out new things, then that ethos of extreme curiosity totally gets lost.
One of our cultural mantras at Metric is:
“If we're still doing the same thing today as we were six months ago, then we failed.”
It's part of the evaluation process for account managers. Because it's really hard to know how to test if you're not looped in. Again, if you’re an agency that focuses 90 percent on some other channel, it's unlikely that you're going to attend closed door events at Facebook or Adwords, where they're revealing what's coming down the pike. We have that advantage.
Scott: So you’re telling me you have Zuck’s cell phone number?
Ryan: I’m under NDA, so, no comment. But yes. I mean no. Forget it.
Scott: Shifting gears to another controversial topic: Guarantees. Especially in the sales process or a kickoff meeting. Are there agencies out there making guarantees that are false, unethical or impossible?
John: With an enterprise level company or large organization, let's say the budget is one million dollars per month. There's no talk of guarantees. That's not really a thing for them. They don't expect agencies to make one. But when you get down into more of the growth stage brands, and even surprisingly, some of the mid market companies, they the work guaranteed like insurance.
Again, it’s not their fault, it's coming from the failures they've had in the past.
They think the guarantee is a way to terminate the contract just in case. But there's no guaranteed in sales. Very few companies can guarantee anything.
Ryan: Man I miss Chris Farley. Anyway, at the top end of the market, this isn't even a discussion. And that should probably tell you something. One of the pieces that's really tough about the marketing agency world is attribution. There are a lot of different ways to do it, and we have strong opinions on the matter, but when we hear about poor marketing services happening, when some agency offers a guarantee of x,y,z results, we lose sleep. Because it becomes a huge fight about attribution.
Agencies starts spending all their time finding a way to falsely prove to clients that they did, in fact, solve their problem and meet the brief, and won’t be returning their money. It's disgusting.
Scott: Does that bode well for the future of marketing agencies?
Ryan: For some, that’s the road to go down now. Five and ten years down the pike, more and more companies will be using a model that is based partially on performance. The problem with that is, they are essentially becoming an investor in the company. Agencies have to underwrite whether they want to take companies on based on how much upside they think they’ll get out of a contract with them, which is a core competency that exists, but it's more investor and venture capital based.
It’s not what Metric does. It’s not the best use of our time and resources.
Scott: It sounds like some clients may simply not be ready to actually hire an agency.
John: Unfortunately, if you're a growth stage brand, and you need a guarantee because you are afraid of losing that capital, you're not ready. But this is a gift we give to potential clients. We tell them how working together is not going work.
Scott: Wait, you actually turn business down?
Ryan: Absolutely. It’s important to say no. Not a lot of agencies will do it. And ultimately I think a lot of the problems with the agency world come down to this:
It's really easy to say yes to another dollar.
Whether that's performing a service that you don't really do, or taking on a client that's a bad fit. Metric is certainly not going to waste a lot of our time and resources and make somebody upset if we take on a client who is not well set up to succeed.
John: There was a great story recently where a guy was very interested in our services. And I told him this:
"Look, I don't think this is a good fit for where you are right now. You're doing a pretty good job in x, y, z, but this service we provide is not a priority for you right now. Let's talk in a couple of months."
The guy was shocked. He was so used to just using whatever solution was rammed down his throat.
Ryan: We will also break up with clients. Which is never fun, but if it’s not a fit, or if it's really tough on our team and there's not much of a prospect for success, it’s time to part ways. We've had situations where we’ve said:
“You know what, guys, let's be honest. We're not going to win here. We're not going to lock you into anything long term, we're going to give you your money back and let's just go our separate ways. And we’ll even help you over the next week or so to transition everything. But it's become clear this isn't going to add value for either party."
We pride ourselves on those rare conversations. Metric always wants to be the type of company that will say no and not just take another dollar, no matter what.
John: You just reminded me of one of the funniest moments during sales a visit. My exact words to the client were as follows:
"I don’t think you need us."
There was about a twenty second pause, and then the guy say:
“So you're not trying to sell me on this call?”
He was bewildered. And this was the type of client who typically would buy! I'd never seen a reaction like that. It gave me a lot of insight.
Scott: What, then, is the overall job of the marketing agency?
Ryan: For some, it’s to retain a client. You can tell when the agency starts limiting client access to all the work their doing. Now, if you’re not really focused on performance, which is hard by the way, it's tough to be two months into a client relationship and say, “Hey, this really isn't working.”
Metric, however, wants to add value to clients. We say to them:
“We want to try these other things, but it may not make sense for you to continue working with us if you have to make a dollar make on top of our fees.”
Clients appreciate that candor. And look, there are times when clients may not be making incremental margin dollars today. And the work that we're doing is still valid for them long-term. I don't want to say that if you're not making a profit off of the work that we're doing, it never makes sense to work together, because that's not true. A lot of it comes back to how you're measuring and tracking things. If you're not being really performance focused, you're not going to realize that what you tried actually performed really well.
John: Back to our issue of agencies incentivizing client relationships. I don't know with a ton of detail how incentive plans for account managers work at different agencies. For some of them, it's pure retention. You get a percentage of everything after a certain period.
But the way that we think about it is like this. These numbers are really important for our team's performance and evaluating their performance. But context really matters, too. For certain project, we may have put account managers in a pretty tough situation to walk into. And if they’re not able to fix a client’s problem that three other agencies have been able to do in the past, there’s not much we can do about it. But that's not going to count the same as losing a client.
Ryan: Reminds me of a great anecdote. I was attending a digital marketing conference. An executive from a big foreign owned agency told me, I kid you not:
“I spend a third of my time delivering value for my clients, I spend a third of my time selling them shit they don't need, and the other third of my time is profit.”
This is the kind of stuff that drives me insane. How can people talk about the value they are taking away from their clients and laugh about it? How can you not care?
John: Wow. And remember, many of these ad tech companies focus only on top line sales. The account executives get a big payoff. And typically those contracts are paid in full upfront. It doesn't matter if they churn the client because they’re bringing just as many new ones in. And so, the size of the sales force is a huge part of it. If the account manager is getting squeezed by the company, they’re going to squeeze the client. It’s like transference.
Ryan: My brain can't stop. That reminds me of another anecdote. Several years ago, we’re at another digital marketing conference. An executive with a big alcohol client was telling this story, laughing his head off about how he blew through $6,000,000 in a month of digital budget. The report that was handed to them at the end of the project showed almost no data. Not even impressions or clicks or anything which like that. He was just laughing his head off about how much money he made off of that personally.
Scott: It almost sounds like a that show House of Lies, where the big consulting house practically gets away with murder.
Ryan: Well, I used to work in consulting. People knocked it as a house of lies, as McKinsey, Bain and BCG execs were doing unethical things behind closed doors, laughing about how much they were getting paid.
But they weren’t. I've been behind those closed doors and they care very deeply about whether or not their clients think they're delivering results. Say what you want, and maybe there are times when some consulting firms are overpaid for projects, but I never saw anything like that. It’s actually shocking to me that agencies are so open and brazen about questionable business practices.
Scott: Let’s shift gears to outsourcing. What’s happening around that issue?
John: Reminds me of financial services, my previous career, where many of those firms were like cowboys. But in the agency world, I think it’s the type of account managers, account directors and executives that certain companies attract. They're unethically outsourcing work and not disclosing it and taking credit for it. But they’re cutting costs, right? So it's okay in their eyes.
Ryan: Yeah and keep in mind, there are two types of outsourcing. The anecdote I recall is from one particular email agency. The word on the street was that what clients were paying for with them was an English speaking account manager who went and told the team in the Philippines what to do. They were building the emails. And then at the end of the day, that outsourced team who was not particularly expert was doing all the work. Meanwhile, you've got an English speaking account manager who can try to smooth it over and make it seem like they're following best practices.
Scott: Yikes, that's some serious pulling the wool over the client's eyes.
Ryan: Sadly, yes. Here’s the other thing about outsourcing. A lot of agencies pretend to be full service agencies where they're doing twelve different things, but they’re really one one guy, and then they outsource all the other work to other agencies. You’re just getting charged as the end client more because they're going to take a margin.
Believe it or not, we’ve actually been the company that paid media is outsourced to. Some of these big agencies know they're not good at that channel. This isn’t an inherently evil thing, but it is usually very opaque to the end client. Brands should at least know that this is going on. And again, if you think you need a full service agency, you might actually be working with four agencies and not realize it.
John: There's white labeling, too. Especially in tech products. Some company acquires the technology, they use it for you in-house through their service, and that cost is simply passed on to the client.
Warning sign: If something seems excessively priced that should be relative to other services, it’s a common agency red flag. It’s possible that everything is fine, but at least drill down to why it’s priced so much higher. You'll probably find in most cases it's been white labeled.
Scott: One of the purposes behind this whole agency discussion is to help clients take back control. Whether they're with an agency that they're not comfortable with, or protecting themselves going forward. How do they control their data, their ideas, etc?
Ryan: Control is one of the most important issues here. As mentioned before, the most common example is when Fortune 500 brands to not have access to their own Facebook advertising accounts and Google Adwords accounts. Their agencies own them, and don't even provide access to clients. There is no good legitimate excuse for why that is the case. Aside from:
"We want to make sure they’re our client forever, so we don't want to let them have access.”
But I think account access is merely a starting place. Getting access allows to have oversight. Keep agencies accountable. Compared to straight up ad fraud, this lack of transparency is a bigger deal. It’s what allows agencies to just spend the client’s $6,000,000, while clients have no idea what's happening, but can’t object because they basically signed up for it.
John: And let’s not forget making it a priority to hire somebody in house with some level of seniority who does have some expertise in digital. Because by their very nature, Fortune 500 companies got big because they competed really well. And more power to them for getting there.
But one of the rewards for that is, unfortunately, it's a little harder to be nimble and adapt on the cutting edge. And so, we totally understand that most people in marketing leadership positions or are not going to be digital experts. Especially if they have thirty years of experience and they have helped build a brand.
Companies should always make sure they put people in key leadership positions who understand this world. They will really help to hold the agencies accountable, and help companies understand how their services fit with the rest of the marketing plan.
Ryan: The good news is, you don't need to make an entire organization transformation to start getting some of the benefits of doing this stuff the right way. As long as you start with a little bit of humility. As an agency, it’s hard for us to fully outline the level of opportunity for a big brand who’s been taken advantage of by an agency without making somebody look bad.
But it’s not their fault. If someone doesn't have a lot of expertise and they have a trusted partner in an agency who is pulling the wool over their eyes, don't shoot the messenger, right?
What sometimes works is to bring in another agency just to take a look at what's going on in the interim. Metric Digital started offering this service more recently. We will help brands pressure test what their agency has been doing. Not as if we’re comin in to replace them. But sometimes companies need another set of eyes. Someone to keep them accountable.
Scott: Whew, we covered a ton of ground today. I think it's time for everyone's favorite segment of Metric Masterminds, The Lightning Round!
Ryan: I eat lightning for breakfast.
John: Yeah? Well when there is a thunderstorm and people see lightning, it's actually just me clapping my hands. Take that!
Outsourcing marketing performance
==> Yeah or Nay?
Ryan: Yeah, there are certain repetitive tasks where you probably could get some leverage.
John: Nay if it's not transparent.
Access to social media dashboards
==> Yeah or Nay?
Ryan: 100% yay.
John: Yeah. Put that stipulation in your agency statement of work.
Controlling your marketing campaigns
==> Yeah or Nay?
Ryan: Well, if you have an amazing agency you trust, you can outsource your worry to them and get on with your job.
John: Totally yay, take control wherever you can get it.
Attending marketing conferences
==> Yeah or Nay?
Ryan: Good for networking and stories of agencies acting a fool, but not something to spend too much time and money on.
John: I'm in sales. Those places are prospecting heaven!
Software as a service for campaigns
==> Yeah or Nay?
Ryan: Nay, get the human touch. It makes a difference.
John: Yeah, but don't be a SaaShole about it.