
106: Are DMOs Paying Agencies for the Wrong Thing? (Agency Panel Reaction, Pt. 2)
In part two of their reaction to episode 103's agency panel, Stuart Butler and Adam Stoker pull on the two threads the panel left hanging. First: at ESTO, 80% of the room said they had an agency of record - and nobody would say what they loved about theirs. The panel called that a definition problem. Adam argues perception is reality, and a gap that big is substantive, not semantic. Stuart offers a different diagnosis. Most DMO budgets go to paid media, and digital media is losing value fast - organic traffic to "things to do in Myrtle Beach" is down about 20% as AI overviews take over, while publishers stack more ads on fewer pages. Maybe the frustration isn't with agencies, but with what the money is buying. Adam shares an audit where an agency refused a client access to its own website backend, and they debate whether agencies with shareholders can afford to take a short-term hit for a long-term relationship. Second: if agencies should be valued for their brains, not their hands, how do you pay for strategy? They unpack the perverse incentive of percentage-of-media-spend pricing, why ad hoc buying sacrifices retainer efficiencies, Adam's experience with fractional staffing models, the idea of paying agencies to develop in-house talent, and why SaaS may be the agency survival plan. Bottom Line: When agency pay is tied to media spend and media value is shrinking, both sides lose. The fix starts with agencies willing to recommend what's right for the destination, even when it costs them.