The three pricing models, and what each one selects for
A monthly retainer buys continuous capacity: diagnosis, implementation, and measurement in an ongoing cycle. It fits conversion work well because the work compounds and because the measurement layer needs a permanent owner. Its weakness is that it can drift into activity without outcomes if nobody is holding it to a number.
Project pricing fits a defined scope — a tracking rebuild, a checkout overhaul — and is cleaner to buy. Its weakness is that conversion work reveals its next priority as it goes, so a fixed scope written in advance is frequently the wrong scope by week three.
Performance-based pricing sounds ideal and is usually structurally unworkable. Attribution disagreements are inevitable, the agency's incentive is to claim credit for lifts that came from elsewhere, and the arrangement discourages exactly the unglamorous infrastructure work — tracking rebuilds, performance fixes — that produces the largest durable gains. We do not offer it, and we are skeptical of firms that lead with it.
