The Problem with Annual Reviews
The standard approach to agency evaluation is an annual review. Once a year, both sides fill out surveys, scores get compiled, someone builds a PowerPoint, and a meeting happens. Then everyone goes back to work and nothing changes until the next review cycle.
The problem isn’t the review itself. The problem is the gap. Twelve months is long enough for a misaligned brief to become a failed campaign, for a staffing change to erode trust, for scope creep to blow the budget, and for frustration to harden into resentment on both sides.
These are the kinds of issues that mid-campaign check-ins catch early:
Misaligned expectations. The client thinks they briefed one thing. The agency heard another. Without a structured moment to compare notes, nobody discovers the gap until the work is presented. By then, time and budget are already spent.
Scope creep. Briefs expand. “One more deliverable” becomes five. Without a check-in that asks “are we still working to the original scope?”, both sides lose track of what was agreed.
Talent and resourcing issues. The senior team who pitched the business hands off to junior staff. The specialist the agency promised isn’t available. These shifts happen gradually and only become visible when someone asks the right question at the right time.
Communication breakdowns. Emails go unanswered. Feedback loops slow down. Status meetings become perfunctory. Small friction compounds into large frustration without anyone naming it.
Timeline and budget pressure. Deadlines slip. Costs creep. Neither side wants to be the one to raise it in the normal flow of work, but a structured check-in creates a safe space to address it directly.
Brief quality. The agency can’t do good work from a bad brief, but most agencies won’t tell their client the brief was weak. A mid-campaign check-in that asks the agency to rate the quality of the input they received surfaces problems the client doesn’t know they’re creating.
The Retrospective Model
Software development teams have solved this problem with a concept called the “retrospective”: a short, structured review at the end of each work sprint. The format is simple. Three questions:
- What went well?
- What could be improved?
- What will we commit to changing in the next phase?
That’s it. No 40-page survey. No elaborate scoring methodology. Just a focused conversation at a natural breakpoint: the end of a campaign phase, the midpoint of a retainer period, or the completion of a major deliverable.
Running a Mid-Campaign Pulse Survey
A practical way to implement this is a short survey, five to ten questions, sent to key stakeholders on both sides at a defined milestone. The questions should cover the fundamentals: output quality, communication, brief clarity, timeline adherence, and whether the relationship feels collaborative or transactional.
Keep it tight. Procurement teams and agency leads are time-poor. A survey that takes three minutes to complete will get 80% response rates. One that takes fifteen minutes won’t clear 40%.
Include an open-ended question: “What’s one thing we should change before the next phase?” The comments are where the real insight lives. Scores tell you something is wrong. Comments tell you what.
Define “Done” Before You Start
One concept worth borrowing from agile methodology: define what success looks like before the engagement begins. What does a completed deliverable include? What quality standard applies? What’s the sign-off process?
When both sides agree on the definition of “done” upfront, the mid-campaign check-in has a clear reference point. You’re not debating expectations. You’re measuring against them.
The annual review still has its place. It’s the right format for stepping back and assessing the full trajectory of a relationship. But the problems that make annual reviews painful (the surprises, the score gaps, the defensive reactions) are exactly the problems that mid-campaign check-ins prevent.