The Audit Nobody Wanted

We weren't originally asked to review their agency relationship. But during initial conversations about their communications function, it became clear that significant budget was going toward activities that nobody could justify.

When we asked what specific value the agency delivered, answers were vague: "They handle our media relations." "They keep us visible in the trade press." "They're there if we need them."

When we asked what would happen if the relationship ended tomorrow, there was an uncomfortable silence.

We proposed a systematic audit of the agency's work over the previous 12 months. The leadership team agreed, though the communications director was understandably defensive. This was a relationship she'd managed for three years.

What We Found

Over 12 months, the agency had:

Issued 47 press releases. Of these, 23 received zero coverage. Another 18 received only minor mentions in trade publications with minimal readership. Six generated meaningful coverage, though four of those were announcing client wins that would have been covered regardless.

Arranged 12 media interviews for senior leaders. Most were in niche publications with limited influence among target audiences. None resulted in coverage in tier-one business media. Several were never published because the journalist deemed the content insufficiently newsworthy.

Produced monthly media monitoring reports. These were comprehensive but largely useless. They tracked every mention of the company and its competitors, creating the appearance of insight without delivering actionable intelligence. Nobody made decisions based on these reports.

Organized quarterly strategy sessions. These were well-facilitated meetings that produced detailed plans subsequently filed and forgotten. There was no evidence the plans influenced actual communications activity.

Provided "crisis support on retainer." In 12 months, the company had faced two situations that could be classified as reputational issues. In both cases, the agency's involvement consisted of a conference call offering general advice that the leadership team already knew.

The Real Numbers

We calculated that of the £504,000 annual spend, approximately £340,000 was delivering no measurable value:

Press releases that generated no coverage: £96,000 (based on the agency's time allocation)

Media monitoring that wasn't used: £48,000

Strategy sessions that didn't drive activity: £32,000

Retained crisis support that provided minimal value when actually needed: £84,000

Meetings and reporting overhead: £80,000

The remaining £164,000 was going toward activities with some value, though even this was questionable given the results.

Why Nobody Had Noticed

The agency relationship had persisted for three years without serious scrutiny for several predictable reasons:

Activity looked like productivity. Monthly reports were detailed. Meetings were well-attended. The agency was responsive and professional. There was a constant flow of emails, proposals, and updates that created the impression of value.

Nobody was measuring outcomes. The company tracked outputs (press releases issued, meetings held) but not outcomes (reputation improvement, stakeholder perception shifts, business impact). Without outcome measurement, the agency could always point to activity as evidence of value.

The agency had become embedded. After three years, they were part of the routine. Quarterly board papers included their reports. Budget planning assumed their continued presence. Nobody wanted to admit the relationship might be a waste of money.

Fear of losing support. Even though the agency's crisis support had been minimal, the communications director worried about facing a crisis without them. The insurance policy mentality meant paying for capability even when it wasn't delivering.

Lack of internal expertise. The communications director came from a marketing background and wasn't confident assessing PR agency effectiveness. She relied on the agency to tell her what good looked like, which they were happy to do.

The Conversation

Presenting these findings to the leadership team was uncomfortable. The communications director felt exposed. The agency, when informed, became defensive and questioned our methodology.

But the CFO asked the right question: "What would we lose if we ended this relationship tomorrow?"

The honest answer: almost nothing.

The agency wasn't generating meaningful media coverage. They weren't providing strategic counsel that shaped decisions. They weren't building stakeholder relationships that would disappear with them. They weren't delivering crisis management capability that couldn't be sourced elsewhere when actually needed.

The Alternative Model

We proposed a different approach:

End the retained relationship. Stop paying for constant availability and shift to engaging specialist support when actually needed.

Build internal capability. Invest in training the communications director and her small team to handle routine media relations, stakeholder engagement, and message development.

Create a specialist network. Identify consultants with deep expertise in specific areas (financial PR, crisis management, regulatory communications) who could be engaged project-by-project.

Retain strategic counsel. Keep a small budget for quarterly strategic reviews with senior communications consultants who could challenge thinking and provide outside perspective.

The total annual cost: approximately £160,000. A saving of £344,000 while actually improving communications effectiveness.

What Changed

Twelve months after implementing the new model:

The company had secured more tier-one media coverage than in the previous three years combined. Not because they were issuing more press releases, but because the communications director, with coaching, had learned to identify genuinely newsworthy angles and pitch them directly to journalists.

Internal messaging had become sharper and more aligned. Without the agency producing generic holding statements and corporate language, the team developed a clearer, more authentic voice.

When a genuine reputation issue emerged (a regulatory inquiry that could have been damaging), they engaged a specialist crisis consultant for three weeks. Cost: £28,000. Value delivered: significantly better than the previous agency's "always available" support.

The communications director's confidence and capability had grown dramatically. She was making strategic decisions rather than deferring to agency recommendations.

The Broader Pattern

This isn't an isolated case. We've now conducted similar audits for eight clients. In every instance, we've found significant waste in retained agency relationships:

Agencies that produce impressive reports but deliver minimal results.

"Strategic partnerships" that consist mainly of junior account handlers executing tasks.

Retained fees for crisis support that's never actually used or proves inadequate when it is.

Activity-based billing that incentivizes volume over value.

The problem isn't that all agencies deliver poor value. It's that many organizations don't have the internal expertise to assess what they're getting, so they continue paying for relationships that have become habit rather than investment.

Questions to Ask

If you're investing significantly in retained communications support, ask these questions:

What specific outcomes has this relationship delivered in the past year? Not activities or outputs, but actual stakeholder impact and business results.

What would we lose if this relationship ended tomorrow? If the answer is mainly "they handle stuff we could probably handle ourselves," you're not getting value.

Are we paying for capability we rarely use? Retained crisis support sounds sensible, but if you've paid for it for three years and used it twice, you're probably overpaying.

Could we achieve the same outcomes for less by engaging specialists project-by-project? Often yes, with the added benefit of getting true experts rather than generalists.

Is this agency relationship improving our internal capability or creating dependency? Good consultants should make you stronger. If you're more dependent on them after three years than you were at the start, something's wrong.

The Hard Truth

Nobody likes to admit they've been wasting money for years. The communications director initially saw our audit as criticism of her judgment. The agency portrayed it as a short-term cost-cutting exercise that would damage long-term reputation building.

But the evidence was clear. The company was paying for impressive activity that delivered minimal results. Changing the model saved hundreds of thousands of pounds while improving effectiveness.

Sometimes the most valuable communications advice is about what not to spend.

Conclusion

Retained agency relationships have their place. Some organizations genuinely benefit from consistent, embedded communications support. But many are paying for habit, insurance, and the appearance of sophistication rather than measurable value.

If you're investing six figures annually in communications agencies, you owe it to your business to verify what you're actually getting for that money.

The answer might surprise you. And it might save you hundreds of thousands of pounds.