Why pay A Retainer?

Ever since my days early days client side I've always been frustrated by the notion of why anyone would pay a PR or marketing agency a retainer?

Retainers are the very antithesis of staying fresh and only doing what's really required. At the very best it's money for old rope.

Talk that retainers secure you some element of exclusivity are often very wide of the mark. If an agency is doing a good job promoting your brand then they are simultaneously putting themselves in the shop window making it highly unlikely that they would consider jeopardizing a mutually beneficial working relationship.

If on the other hand you are working with an agency that thinks for a moment that it's morally acceptable talking to your direct competitors whilst working with you then surely this is a friendship you can afford to live without?

My biggest gripe with retainers is that it breeds suspicion and encourages poor practice. From a client side there is always a nagging doubt about how an agency is earning its keep this month, compared to a project fee where you should know exactly what you're getting for your money.

From an agency perspective there's the tempatation to invent unnecessary work to justify your existence, even though they know that there's a law of diminishing returns for brands who hog the spotlight too much but have nothing worthwhile to say.

Purple Pilchard is an agency that prefers to stay on its toes and so stubbornly refuses to accept retainers even when they're offered.

This isn't to say we don't devise strategic forward-thinking marketing plans that look between 6-9 months into the future because good planning sits at the heart of every good PR campaign.

What we won't do is discriminate against those start up brands on tight budgets who have a couple of great stories to tell every year but simply can't afford to fritter money away propping up lazy PR agencies looking for another easy pay cheque.