Agency ‘Custody’ Model Locks Clients In, Lee McCabe Argues

In a recent LinkedIn post, Lee McCabe argues that many marketing agencies employ a “custody” model that ultimately disadvantages their clients, making it difficult for businesses to transition away from their services. McCabe, a vocal commentator on business operations and strategy, highlights a common practice where agencies retain control over crucial marketing assets and platforms.

McCabe contends that this approach, while seemingly beneficial, creates a dependency that resembles a “hostage situation.” He elaborates on the specific assets agencies often control:

“They run ads through their accounts. They build landing pages in their tools. They own the pixels. They own the dashboards. They “manage” your GA4. They set up call tracking. They keep the creative files. They control access.”

The core of McCabe’s argument is that this control means clients don’t truly own their marketing infrastructure. He explains the consequences of trying to switch agencies under such an arrangement.

The Hidden Cost of Agency Control

According to McCabe, the true cost of this “custody” model becomes apparent when a client decides to part ways with their agency. He paints a stark picture of the client’s predicament:

“Fire the agency and suddenly your campaigns vanish, your history disappears, your learnings are gone, your audiences are locked, your tracking breaks, and you’re back to week one with a new partner.”

This situation, as McCabe points out, is not a partnership but a deliberate mechanism to retain clients, often referred to as “protecting churn.” He contrasts this with a true partnership, emphasizing that essential assets should always remain with the business.

Defining True Partnership in Marketing Services

Ownership of Core Marketing Assets

McCabe strongly advocates for businesses to retain ownership of their fundamental marketing assets. He lists several key areas that should remain under the client’s control:

• Ad accounts
• Domains
• Analytics platforms (e.g., GA4)
• Google Tag Manager (GTM) containers
• Call tracking systems
• Creative asset libraries
• All associated data

As Lee McCabe puts it:

“The asset stays with the business.”

He uses the analogy of a car to further illustrate his point, stating that an agency can drive the car, but they should not own the car, the keys, the garage, or the insurance. This ownership ensures continuity and control for the business, regardless of agency relationships.

Protecting Performance vs. Protecting Churn

McCabe concludes by warning businesses to be wary of agencies that insist on operating entirely within their own environments. He argues that such demands are not about maximizing performance but about securing ongoing revenue by making it difficult for clients to leave.

“If they insist on running everything in their environment, they’re not protecting performance. They’re protecting churn.”

His post serves as a critical examination of agency-client relationships, urging businesses to prioritize ownership and control over their marketing assets to ensure genuine partnership and long-term strategic flexibility.