I started my career in marketing and worked my way through the industry, eventually reaching the CMO level. Along the way, I experienced marketing from nearly every angle, building strategies, managing campaigns, overseeing budgets, and working directly with agencies.

And there was one thing about the traditional agency model that never quite made sense to me.

During the pitch, agencies were incredibly confident.

They had the strategy. They had the experience. They had the projections. And they were certain they could deliver results.

But I kept coming back to one simple question:

If you're that confident in the results you can produce, why not tie your compensation to actually producing them?

The answer, in my opinion, is pretty simple.

Because the failure rate is too high.

Under the traditional agency model, the client carries all of the risk. You pay the agency fee. You fund the ad spend. And if the campaign doesn't work, the agency still gets paid.

If an agency is entrusted with a company's advertising dollars and fails to produce the results it agreed to deliver, I don't believe that agency should be rewarded simply for doing the work.

Activity isn't the same thing as results.

That's the idea behind Pay After Marketing.

We wanted to create a different kind of relationship between businesses and their marketing agency, one where, for eligible performance-marketing engagements, our incentives are aligned from the beginning.

We establish what success looks like. We build the strategy. We execute. We measure.

And we believe our compensation should be connected to our ability to deliver on what we agreed to accomplish.

Because your marketing agency shouldn't win when you lose.

We should win when you win.

That's Pay After Marketing.