What $117,000 Bought One Bakery Owner From Her Marketing Agency

A bakery owner in regional Victoria kept a spreadsheet for every month of her agency relationship. Not because she was suspicious at the start, but because she is the kind of operator who tracks everything: flour costs, wastage, staff hours, foot traffic by day of week.

After 26 months she cancelled the retainer. Then she sat down and did the maths.

The raw numbers

Total spend: $117,000 ($4,500 per month, 26 months).

What she logged in return:

• 208 social posts across Instagram and Facebook
• 14 email campaigns, all sent late (average delay: 9 days past agreed date)
• 1 website refresh, delivered 11 weeks late and outside the original scope of work
• 47 strategy decks and reports, most never opened after the initial meeting
• 0 paid ad campaigns of any kind

She was not on an unusual plan. The retainer covered social content, email, website management, and a monthly strategy call. Standard mid-market agency offer.

The cost-per-output maths

If you allocate the full $117,000 across the social posts alone, each post cost $563. The posts were mostly carousel screenshots of the menu, reposted specials, and the occasional flat-lay of a croissant. Nothing that required original photography, illustration, or copywriting beyond a caption.

The email campaigns average out to $8,357 each. They were monthly newsletters: a seasonal special, a reminder about the loyalty card, a note about changed trading hours. Competent, but not complex.

The website refresh, which was a single project inside the retainer rather than a separately scoped engagement, took 11 weeks longer than agreed and required the owner to personally chase the developer four times to get access to her own Google Search Console account.

The 47 decks are harder to cost because they produced nothing measurable. But if you assign them even a quarter of the total spend, that is roughly $620 per deck for documents that were opened once and never actioned.

What the retainer was actually paying for

This is the part the agency would dispute, and to be fair, some of the spend did cover real overhead: account management time, software subscriptions, internal briefing, quality review. Agencies have costs.

But that is exactly the problem with retainers. The fee is fixed. The output is not. There is no mechanism that connects what you pay to what you receive. A month where the agency is understaffed, or your account manager goes on leave, or a bigger client needs attention looks identical on your invoice to a month where everything runs smoothly.

The owner described it this way in her diary: “I stopped asking what was included because I felt like I was being difficult. That is when I knew something was wrong.”

Retainers work well for the agency because they smooth revenue. They are harder to justify for the client because the value is deliberately kept abstract. Strategy, brand thinking, relationship, access. These things have worth, but they are also very convenient to invoice for when output is thin.

The specific failure points

Social content. Two hundred and eight posts over 26 months is roughly two posts per week. That sounds reasonable until you look at what they were. Menu screenshots require no creative brief, no photography, no research. They are the lowest-effort format available on Instagram. The agency was not building an audience; it was filling a calendar.

Email. Fourteen campaigns in 26 months is one every seven weeks, not monthly as agreed. Every campaign arrived late. Late email is not a minor operational issue for a bakery: a newsletter about the Easter trading hours that arrives after Easter is worse than no newsletter at all.

Paid media. Zero. The retainer did not explicitly include paid campaign management, but the agency had pitched on its ability to run Meta and Google Ads. The owner had asked about it four times across the 26 months. Each time she was told it would be scoped separately. It never was.

The website. One refresh in over two years, late, and over scope. The owner ended up writing most of the copy herself because the agency’s draft read, in her words, “like it was written about a different bakery.”

What she did after

She cancelled in month 27. She moved her social posting to a scheduling tool she manages herself, spending around three hours a week. She hired a local photographer for a half-day shoot every quarter. She runs a simple monthly email through a platform she pays roughly $80 a month for.

She has not run paid ads yet. That is the one gap she acknowledges. But she is also spending $4,500 less per month, which gives her room to test properly when she is ready.

Her organic reach is roughly the same as it was with the agency. Her email open rate is higher, partly because she writes the subject lines herself and knows what her customers actually care about.

The broader point

This is not a story about a bad agency. The agency was not fraudulent or incompetent. It delivered something. The story is about what retainers structurally obscure.

When you pay a fixed monthly fee for a bundle of services, you lose the ability to evaluate each service individually. You cannot see that your social content costs $563 per post because it is bundled with email, which is bundled with strategy, which is bundled with the website. The blending is the point. It makes comparison impossible and cancellation feel like a bigger decision than it is.

The owner’s diary was unusual. Most business owners do not track agency outputs that carefully, which is exactly why agencies can let quality drift without immediate consequence.

If you are on a retainer right now, the exercise is simple. List every deliverable you received last month. Divide your monthly fee by that number. Then ask whether you would pay that unit price if you were buying each item separately.

The answer will tell you what you are actually buying.

---

In-House is built on the premise that marketing work should be visible and accountable at the task level, not hidden inside a monthly fee. If you want to see what that looks like in practice, the platform is free to explore.