Where we started saying this out loud
A recurring pattern in audits is an account that is close to working. Structure is reasonable, the offer is fine, and a small number of specific faults are doing most of the damage.
Quoting a retainer for that account would be selling ongoing management for a problem that needed a week of correction and some training. We would rather say so, partly because it is true and partly because the businesses we say it to tend to come back later with work that genuinely needs us.
The four faults that recur
- Conversion tracking measuring the wrong thing, double-counting, or not firing at all
- No negative keyword routine, so the search terms report has never been read
- Auto-apply recommendations left enabled, quietly broadening a deliberately tight account
- Creative produced in occasional batches, so performance decays predictably every few weeks
What training actually needs to cover
Not platform tutorials, which are freely available and rarely the constraint. The useful content is judgement: how to tell whether a number can be trusted, what to look at when performance drops, and which changes are worth making versus which just reset learning.
The measurable outcome is whether the team can diagnose a problem next quarter without calling anyone.
When a retainer genuinely is the answer
Where the work is continuous and spans several disciplines, or where nobody internally has time to run it properly, an agency is the better arrangement and we will say that too.
The distinction is honest capacity. A business with a capable person who lacks specific knowledge should be trained. A business with no capacity should hand the work over.
Key takeaways
- Some accounts need correction and training rather than ongoing management
- The four recurring faults are tracking, negatives, auto-apply and creative supply
- Training targets judgement, not platform tutorials