It Is Probably Not the Agency's Fault.
- Nathalie Inniger
- Mar 9
- 4 min read
The pattern is familiar: the agency doesn't get us, so we move on. A new agency is hired. The same frustration surfaces six months later. At some point, it is worth asking what the constant in that equation actually is.
This is not an article that puts the blame on founders. Most founders without a formal marketing background are doing exactly what makes sense — leaning on specialists to fill a gap they know exists. Hiring an agency is a reasonable, often smart decision. The problem is not the decision to hire one. The problem is what happens when an agency is hired before the foundations exist to make them effective.
And that is a problem the agency rarely tells you about — not because they are being dishonest, but because it is genuinely not their job, they are often not paid to do it, and saying so risks losing the brief before the work has even started.
Agencies run with the brief they are given — mostly.
A good agency will push back on a weak brief. A senior account person with the right experience and relationship will ask harder questions, flag gaps, and challenge assumptions before work begins. This happens more than people acknowledge, and it reflects genuine investment in the outcome.
But how far that pushback goes depends on a lot of variables — the seniority of the person managing the relationship, how open the client is to challenge, and the commercial pressure both sides are under. And even when agencies do push back, it tends to happen at the level of the brief itself. What rarely gets examined is the layer underneath: whether the positioning is genuinely solid, whether the business is at a stage where marketing can drive the growth being asked of it. That is a different conversation — one most agencies are neither structured nor compensated to lead.
When the brief is strong — positioning clear, audience defined, strategic intent documented — agencies can do extraordinary work. The brief is the foundation. Everything else is built on top of it.
Roughly 60 percent of clients use the creative process itself to clarify their strategy — rather than defining it before the brief is written. The agency becomes the place where strategic thinking happens that should have happened first.
The agency is also navigating a difficult position.
There is a conversation most agencies have internally that rarely makes it to the client. They can see that the brief is thin. They can see that the positioning is unclear, or that the messaging does not hold up, or that the business has not yet worked out who it is actually for. They have enough experience to know that executing against this brief will produce work that underperforms — and that the client will likely blame the work rather than the brief.
But raising this directly is a delicate thing. Agencies — particularly smaller ones competing hard on price — are not in a strong position to push back. The relationship is new. The client wants to move forward. And there is a very fine line between offering strategic perspective based on experience and appearing to tell a founder that their brief, their positioning, or their business model is not ready. Most agencies walk that line carefully, advise where they can, and proceed.
This is not a failure of character. It is the reality of how agencies are structured and compensated. A significant portion of what an agency earns in the first months of a new client relationship goes toward onboarding, research, and strategic development. When that relationship begins with heavy price pressure — which it frequently does, in an industry where being the most affordable is often treated as a competitive advantage — that foundational work gets compressed or skipped entirely. The agency delivers. The results disappoint. The client moves on.
The pattern then repeats.
A new agency is briefed. They receive the same underlying brief — perhaps updated, perhaps refined — but built on the same unresolved strategic questions. The same assumptions are made. The work drifts in similar ways. The client experiences similar frustration. And the cycle continues, with the agency absorbing the blame for what is, at its root, a structural problem that no amount of creative talent can solve from the outside.
This is not a rare edge case. It is one of the most consistent patterns in how founder-led businesses experience marketing. The agency changes. The outcome does not. Because the brief — and the business architecture beneath it — has not changed either.
Agencies are rarely empowered or compensated to rebuild a company's fundamental positioning. So they default to tactical execution. And tactical execution, without strategic architecture, rarely drives consistent growth.
What changes when the brief is strong.
When a business has done the structural work first — when positioning is documented, the customer is genuinely understood, channel roles are defined, and the strategic intent is clear — the agency relationship transforms. The brief gives the agency something real to work with. Assumptions are replaced by direction. Creative energy is focused rather than scattered. Revisions become refinements rather than resets.
Good agencies, given a strong brief, produce work that compounds. They build on a foundation that holds. They become genuine partners rather than vendors trying to interpret an unclear instruction. The relationship lengthens. The results improve. And the founder stops spending time correcting drift and starts spending time on growth.
That outcome is available to most founder-led businesses. It just requires doing the structural work before the agency brief is written — not during the creative process, and not after the first campaign underperforms.
Comments