Buy
Better

We don't have a hard minimum, but media planning only earns its keep above a certain threshold. Below roughly five hundred thousand a year, the planning fee outweighs the optimization upside. Above that, we're worth it. Below, we'll tell you honestly that you're better off keeping the buy in-house and we'll help.

Carefully, with skepticism. Last-click attribution lies. Multi-touch helps but isn't truth. We use a combination of platform reporting, media-mix modeling, and incrementality testing — and we tell you which numbers to trust and which to take with a grain of salt. Attribution is informed estimate, not certainty. We treat it that way.

Yes, often. We don't always need to replace your existing buyers — sometimes we plan, they execute, and the partnership works. Other times the setup is the problem and we recommend changes. We tell you which applies after the diagnostic. The point is the right answer, not protecting our scope of work.

Both, when the audience justifies it. Programmatic for scale and reach. Direct for premium environments and editorial alignment. We bias toward direct when the campaign needs the context, programmatic when it needs the volume. Most plans use both — weighted by where attention is highest quality and lowest cost for the audience.

Most media agencies are buying machines. They optimize for spend efficiency because that's how they're paid. We optimize for outcomes — leads, attention, brand search, whatever the campaign is actually meant to move. The buy is a means, not the metric. We'll lower spend if it makes sense. A buying-machine rarely will.

Flat planning fee plus a flat management fee on the media spend. Both quoted up front, both visible. We don't take a percentage of media as our fee — that incentivizes us to recommend bigger budgets, the wrong incentive. The number on the SOW is what you pay. Media is just media.