Marketing That Destroys Businesses: How Leaders Fall Into Marketing Partner Traps
In marketing processes, relationships between agencies, in-house specialists, managers, and shareholders sometimes become so complex that after purchasing one service, the company ends up receiving something entirely different.
Therefore, I have often heard company leaders say that marketing essentially feels like manipulation to them. And indeed, it is sad to admit, but in this space some specialists or agencies try to “beautify” results or cleverly offer what benefits them rather than the client.
If you decide to dive deeper into this article, it is very likely that you will recognize situations you have experienced yourself—perhaps you simply haven’t named them until now. In turn, I will highlight signals that help identify risks early and, as an experienced professional, sincerely try to advise what to do to avoid or at least solve them. Based on many years of experience, I will reveal the most common mistakes and manipulations that cost businesses dearly.
This is a sensitive topic. Not everyone will feel comfortable reading it: for some, it will be a truth they did not want to hear; for others, information they did not want to see made public. However, dishonesty and mistakes in marketing are part of everyday reality, and it is easy to fall into these traps but difficult to get out of them. I hope this text will help your organization stop harmful cycles and regain control.
In this article I’ll discuss:
- traps that leaders fall into when ordering marketing services;
- manipulation of statistics and imitation of work;
- interests of different groups and their influence on decisions;
- the most common mistakes in the early stages of ordering services;
- relationships between shareholders, managers, marketing specialists, and agencies.
Why and How Real Marketing Results Are Hidden from Managers and Shareholders
Have you ever had the feeling that something is “off”—as if you are only seeing a polished version of reports, but not the real state of your business? Unfortunately, this is not a rare situation. There are agencies and specialists who deliberately hide real marketing metrics and restrict access to accounts and data—even when the client requests it or wants to validate results, direction, or strategy with another team.
Usually, this is justified by “confidentiality,” internal rules, or other impressive-sounding arguments. Over time, this practice becomes normalized: managers get used to it and sometimes even begin to justify the situation themselves—that they cannot freely access their company’s marketing accounts and analytics.
As an agency leader, I have seen more than one case where a client feels that results do not reflect reality, but when they ask to review analytics, it turns out they do not even have access to their own data.
And this is where it is worth pausing. This is one of the clearest red flags. Your analytics and accounts must be accessible to you at any time you need them. After all, it is your business—there is no other way it should be.
Why Are Real Marketing Results Hidden?
The answer is simple: because this is where space for manipulation and serving personal interests appears.
Most often, the goal is to present a better situation than actually exists. Sometimes this comes from fear—of losing a client, a job, or bonuses. Other times, it stems from unfulfilled promises, when results were promised but not achieved. There are also cases driven by a desire to please management for career growth or to hide personal (or group) mistakes.
I have seen cases where website statistics were artificially “doubled”—the same visitor session recorded twice. This makes advertising traffic in Google Analytics reports appear twice as large, even though the advertising budget remains the same. At first glance, this creates the impression that advertising was perfectly optimized and the organization supposedly saved money. However, such manipulations are easy to detect: request reports not only from Google Analytics but also compare them with Google Ads data. The actual numbers must logically align. If they don’t, management must understand the reasons and take them into account when evaluating results.
Another example is when company employees’ browsers are set to automatically open the company’s website by default. Every time the browser is launched, the website opens, and analytics records this as “direct traffic.” The result is artificially inflated traffic that has nothing to do with real customer interest.
Similar methods also appear in agency competition, when higher traffic is promised for the same (or lower) price, and later beautified numbers are presented. When questions arise, managers are often dragged into complex technical discussions they struggle to understand. The manipulator starts asking the auditor additional questions—usually ones that require significant extra work, time, and cost. Management often does not want to pay for this, the auditor does not want to work for free, and the topic “naturally” gets closed.
Agency and “Internal Politics” Interests: How KPIs Are Chosen
Who is truly represented in marketing—the client’s interests or the agency’s (and internal politics’) goals? When the goal is to earn more from the client rather than help the client’s business earn more, self-interest usually wins. This is especially visible in KPI selection.
Have you ever:
- chosen an agency or specialist based on the ROAS they achieved for someone else?
- seen agencies boast about “very high ROAS”?
- bought services paid “based on ROAS performance”?
If yes, there is a high chance you were drawn into a manipulation model. Sometimes this happens due to lack of knowledge or competence, but more often it is a deliberate, well-thought-out decision that benefits the service provider—not the client.
Even worse—when the client themselves asks for such a model. At first glance, it sounds logical: “I will only pay for results.” But in reality, this often becomes a trap. If the client does not purchase separate consultation about KPI meaning and risks, it is easier for the specialist to “please” them and deliver what is asked—even if it harms the business long term.
Sometimes agencies themselves propose this model. Why? Because ROAS is one of the easiest metrics to manipulate.
Why Is ROAS So Easy to Artificially Inflate?
If you evaluate campaigns only by ROAS (without additional context), it can be quickly “improved” with a simple trick: keep only branded keyword campaigns in Google Search and turn off all others.
What happens then?
- ROAS in reports shoots up 2x or more;
- managing ads becomes easier and faster;
- for the agency or specialist, this means less work but the same (or even higher) income.
There is only one problem: this does not necessarily grow the business.
Because value is not created only by brand campaigns. Other keywords, audiences, and formats can generate additional revenue and profit. Yes, their ROAS is usually lower—but they drive growth. When all focus shifts to “beautiful” ROAS, expansion is often sacrificed.
How to Prevent ROAS from Becoming a Manipulation Tool
At minimum, reports should separate:
- brand campaign results;
- all other campaign results.
They must be analyzed separately. Yes, this requires more time from both agency and client. But it is crucial—because the less scope and control you maintain, the higher the chance of encountering “optimizations” that look good in reports but actually slow growth.
So if you only want a “nice ROAS” at a lower cost—it is possible. But if you want revenue and profit to grow, it will require more work, more control, and broader service scope.
Campaigns focused on ROAS aim to maximize return from the advertising budget and usually target “hot” audiences—people ready to buy. Meanwhile, awareness campaigns do not aim for immediate sales. They build demand, trust, and habit—and their impact on sales often appears only over time.
Moreover, awareness campaigns almost always reduce short-term ROAS because they expand audiences and invest in the upper funnel. Therefore, expecting traffic, awareness, sales, and ROAS to all grow simultaneously—especially in short reporting periods—is often not just difficult, but practically impossible.
Manipulation of Statistical Information in Marketing: Methods and Reasons
n marketing, numbers often appear objective. However, in reality, statistics are only as accurate as the measurement system behind them. And when that system becomes a tool for manipulation—transparency and decision-making suffer.
Below are the most common manipulation methods:
1) Manipulation through analytics tracking methodology (e.g., Google Analytics)
Analytics can be configured in hundreds of ways. Sometimes tracking setups become so complex that even experienced specialists struggle to understand them.
The problem arises when methodology is changed to make numbers look better. This often destroys historical data comparability—new data cannot be compared with old data because it is collected differently. This eliminates objective progress evaluation.
Worse, manipulated data feeds AI-driven ad systems (Google Ads, Meta, TikTok). Poor data quality directly impacts ad performance.
In such cases, no matter how much you optimize campaigns—if measurement is broken, results will never be stable.
In other words, your entire analysis becomes fake—like falsified accounting. Decisions based on such data become subjective, unverifiable, and easily manipulated.
2) Manipulation through intermediate reports
Not all numbers in reports are truthful. Sometimes you are shown data you cannot verify. I have seen agencies present recalculated reports with artificially altered ad costs. The logic is simple: the agency claims its service is “cheap” or “free,” while hiding profit inside ad spend.
Typical scheme:
- ads are bought through the agency’s accounts;
- the client does not see real ad costs;
- the agency invoices inflated ad spend;
- this creates a false competitive advantage (“we are cheaper”).
Another manipulation: claiming to be an “exclusive Google/Meta partner” and insisting accounts cannot belong to the client. In such cases, the client becomes fully dependent on reported numbers.
Reality: if you cannot verify ad spend and results directly in platforms—you should not blindly trust them.
3) Manipulation through time and KPIs
Executives and shareholders have limited time. In meetings, usually only 30–60 minutes are allocated to discuss marketing. And this is exactly where room for manipulation appears: during that time, it’s possible to talk about anything that sounds “smart” but doesn’t answer the most important question — what is the real impact on the business?
For example, one can spend a long time talking about:
- the number of visitors, sessions, and their changes;
- audiences, geography, age groups;
- engagement, reach, views.
All of this can be useful, but often it becomes a way to “kill time” so there’s no time left to discuss what truly matters: sales, profitability, lead quality, customer acquisition cost, and the sustainability of growth.
For a manager who isn’t well-versed in digital marketing, the “right KPIs” are often the ones presented and explained by the person who inspires the most trust.
I have personally asked executives to show reports and comment on what they see. One answer was straightforward: “I don’t understand anything.” Another was: “Traffic is growing, everything is fine.” But when asked what impact this has on sales, there is no answer.
In such situations, the report becomes a smokescreen: it looks like a massive amount of work is being done, “mountains are being moved,” but the real result is hidden behind polished, automatically generated charts.
4) Different calculation methodologies
Different platforms measure results differently. This is not always manipulation. The key question: Do you have a unified methodology across channels?
If not, decisions are based on interpretation—not facts—which creates perfect conditions for mistakes and manipulation.
How to Avoid Marketing Manipulation
Manipulation happens where there is no clarity, ownership, control, or transparency. The good news: most risks can be prevented.
1) Ownership and contracts
First, ensure ownership rights over all completed work and created assets. A simple rule: everything you pay for should belong to you.
It is also important that all accounts (Google Ads, Meta Ads, Analytics, Tag Manager, etc.) belong to and are managed by your organization. If, for objective reasons, this is not possible, contracts must clearly state that:
- you have full access rights;
- you have the right to grant access to third-party specialists for audits or reviews;
- the accounts must be transferred to you upon request.
Remember: accounts contain change history—showing who made changes, when, and what was modified. However, if you do not control the accounts, you will not be able to determine responsibility, and in case of losses, you will have no basis to claim accountability.
2) Strong analytics foundation
High-quality marketing analytics is the foundation of your control. Its tracking methodology cannot be changed “on a whim.” You must ensure:
- consistency;
- data quality;
- a responsible person (or team) overseeing analytics processes and implementation;
- the ability for other specialists to audit the analytics when needed.
The analytics methodology should only be changed when:
- it was implemented incorrectly;
- technological solutions or platform requirements have changed.
Remember: “cleaning” analytics history or deleting accounts often becomes a convenient way to hide past manipulations. Never allow Google Analytics accounts to be deleted or erased—otherwise, you will never know who tried to alter your data and why.
3) Verify agency credibility
If an agency claims to be a Google or Meta partner but is not listed in the official Google or Meta partner directories, or avoids providing clear proof (such as a partner profile, certifications, or official status verification), this is already a serious reason to pause and carefully reconsider whether it is worth working with them.
It’s also important to understand one more thing: even if an agency truly is a partner, this does not automatically guarantee quality or integrity. Partnership usually means the agency meets certain technical criteria (e.g., certifications, ad spend volume, process standards), but it does not mean that:
- your accounts will be managed transparently,
- your data will belong to you,
- KPIs will not be manipulated,
- or that the focus will be on your business profitability rather than “good-looking reports.”
Therefore, treat partnership as one of many trust signals—but never as the sole reason to choose an agency. And if partnership is claimed but not proven, it is not a “small detail,” but a red flag that often points to deeper issues.
4) Check analytics quality
“Installing” analytics does not automatically mean it works correctly—especially if the person who implemented it lacks sufficient experience or isn’t a specialist in this field.
If you don’t know who exactly set up the analytics and what their competence is, you have a valid reason to doubt it.
Audit your analytics, but after the review, give the agency or specialist a chance to explain why the decisions were made that way. Only then will you understand what was a mistake and what was a deliberate choice.
5) Control access rights
In practice, I very often see that organizations lack internal processes to control:
- who has access to accounts;
- what level of permissions they have;
- whether those permissions are still necessary.
This increases the risk of account takeovers, data leaks, and even theft. Assign a responsible person and regularly conduct access audits—especially when agencies or employees change.
Accounts often have multi-level structures. Even if you can see users in your account, it does not necessarily mean you see everyone. If your account is at a lower level in the structure, higher-level users may have access without your knowledge.
6) Use independent experts when needed
There are organizations where internal employees or agencies become a “wall” between leadership and reality. They do everything to prevent other vendors or auditors from entering internal processes. Why? So that the system continues to work in their favor.
I also see companies that are “hooked”: contracts and structures are set up in a way that makes it nearly impossible to replace a service provider without incurring losses. In some cases, it is worth for shareholders to hire independent experts or “mystery auditors” who can objectively assess risks and provide recommendations.
Where there are large budgets, there are many interests. The bigger the investment in marketing, the higher the risk of waste—but also the greater the potential for optimization, automation, and performance improvement.
7) Verify interpretations, not just numbers
Numbers alone are not decisions. Decisions are shaped by interpretations—and those often become a tool for manipulation.
For example, the statement “email marketing is the most effective” may be true in one context but misleading in another. Such a claim alone is not a sufficient basis to invest in email marketing. Interpretations must be validated with real data and your specific business situation.
When I see an organization jumping between actions and still unsure what to do in marketing, I usually recognize one core issue: a lack of data-driven strategy. In such cases, decisions are made based on intuition, and results become random.
8) Choose partners carefully
Choosing an agency is not an impulsive decision. You are not choosing a “service,” but people to whom you will entrust your budget, data, reputation, and part of your business growth responsibility. That’s why an agency should be evaluated just as seriously as you would evaluate an important team member or leader.
Price or a polished portfolio does not determine everything. What matters most is transparency, thinking, processes, and the ability to take responsibility for results—not just for how reports look.
How to Choose a Digital Marketing Agency is discussed in a separate article. You can find it here.
FAQ
Is it normal for advertising/analytics accounts to belong to the agency?
No. Accounts should belong to the organization, while the agency should only have granted access. If, for objective reasons, accounts are temporarily created within the agency’s environment, the contract must clearly define the transfer, full ownership rights, and audit access.
What are common examples of “beautified” business performance reports?
- Artificially “doubled” traffic (e.g., the same visit counted multiple times).
- Company website opening automatically in employees’ browsers (inflating direct traffic).
- Reports presented in a way that makes it impossible to verify calculation logic.
Why does ROAS often become a manipulation tool?
Because ROAS can be “improved” through technical adjustments that do not grow the business (e.g., keeping only brand campaigns while turning off growth campaigns). Reports may look strong, but actual business expansion is stalled.
What must be clearly defined in a contract with an agency?
- Ownership rights to all created work and assets.
- That accounts belong to the organization (or must be transferred upon request).
- Full access and the right to grant access for audits.
- Clear KPI methodology and transparent reporting standards.
