That conversation led to a complete restructuring of how we work. We shifted from monthly retainers to deliverable-based packages. It was uncomfortable—retainers had provided predictable revenue and the flexibility to adjust scope as needed. But they'd also created problems I hadn't fully acknowledged until that moment forced me to confront them.

Here's what we learned making that shift, why it works better for mission-driven organizations, and when retainers might still make sense.

The Problems With Monthly Retainers

Monthly retainers are the default model for many marketing firms. You pay a set fee each month, the firm provides ongoing support, everyone knows what to expect financially. It sounds ideal.

But in practice, I found several persistent problems:

Problem 1: Scope creep becomes the norm

With a monthly retainer, there's no clear boundary between what's included and what's additional. A client reaches out with "just a quick thing"—can you update this webpage? Can you review this email? Can you create a social post for tomorrow?

Each request individually is small. But collectively, they add up. And because there's no defined scope, it's awkward to push back. You're being paid monthly for "ongoing support"—so isn't this what that means?

I found myself constantly trying to track whether we'd done "enough" to justify the monthly fee, or whether we'd done "too much" and were being taken advantage of. Neither calculation felt good.

Clients felt it too. They'd sometimes hesitate to reach out because they weren't sure if something was "included" or if they were being annoying. The ambiguity created weird dynamics where both parties were unclear about expectations.

Problem 2: Value is hard to demonstrate

When you're billing monthly for ongoing availability rather than specific deliverables, proving value becomes abstract.

"What did we get for our $5,000 this month?"

"Well, we were available for strategic consulting, we reviewed your materials, we provided guidance on your campaign planning..."

None of that is wrong. But it's not concrete. There's no clear before-and-after. No defined outcome that justifies the investment.

I found myself creating activity reports to show we'd been busy—hours logged, tasks completed, meetings attended. But busy isn't the same as valuable. A client doesn't need us to be busy. They need us to move their mission forward.

The retainer model made it easy to confuse activity with impact.

Problem 3: Misaligned incentives

Here's the uncomfortable truth about retainers: the firm's incentive is to do the minimum necessary to keep the client happy while maximizing how many retainer clients they can manage simultaneously.

The client's incentive is to extract maximum value for their monthly fee, which often means requesting more and more until they find the limit.

These incentives create tension. The firm wants predictable, manageable workload. The client wants maximum flexibility and responsiveness. Both are reasonable, but they're not aligned.

I found that even with good clients who I genuinely liked, there was this underlying negotiation happening every month about how much was "fair" on both sides. That's not a healthy foundation for partnership.

Problem 4: Starting and stopping is weird

What happens when a client doesn't need much in a given month? They still pay the full retainer. That feels wasteful to them.

What happens when a client needs a lot in a given month? Do you do it all because they're on retainer? Do you charge extra? Do you push some to next month? There's no clear answer.

I had clients who wanted to "pause" their retainer for a month or two when they knew they'd be quiet, then resume it later. Which makes sense from their perspective, but destroys the predictable revenue model that retainers are supposed to provide.

Problem 5: It rewards inefficiency

The faster you work, the worse the retainer economics become for you. If you can complete something in 5 hours instead of 10, you've just made your hourly rate worse.

This creates a perverse incentive to work slower, take more time on things, or fill hours with busywork to justify the monthly fee.

I never consciously did this. But I noticed I wasn't particularly motivated to optimize processes or work faster when I was on retainer. Why would I? Getting more efficient just meant doing more work for the same money.

The Moment That Changed Everything

The breaking point came during a contract renewal conversation with a foundation client I'd been working with for over a year.

They were happy with the work. They wanted to continue the relationship. But when we got to the retainer fee, they hesitated.

"Can you help us understand exactly what we're paying for each month? Our board wants to see clear deliverables tied to our investment."

It was a completely reasonable request. And I couldn't answer it clearly.

I could say "ongoing strategic support." But what did that mean in concrete terms? What were they guaranteed to receive? What outcomes were we accountable for?

The vagueness that had felt like flexibility suddenly felt like a weakness. They were paying significant money each month for something I couldn't clearly define.

That's when I realized: if I can't clearly articulate what value we're providing, we probably aren't providing it clearly.

The Shift to Deliverable-Based Work

I proposed a different structure for their contract renewal: instead of a monthly retainer, we'd define specific deliverables for the year with clear timelines and pricing.

For example:

• Annual report design and production: $8,000, delivered by March 31

• Two fundraising campaigns: $6,000 each, delivered quarterly

• Website updates and maintenance: $3,500 per quarter, including specific refresh projects

• Quarterly strategy sessions: $2,000 each

Total annual investment was roughly the same as the retainer would have been. But now both of us knew exactly what we were working toward, when it would be delivered, and how to measure success.

They loved it. Their board loved it. And honestly, I loved it too—because I finally had clear accountability.

That was three years ago. We've never gone back to retainers.

How Deliverable-Based Pricing Actually Works

The shift required rethinking how we structure client relationships. Here's what we learned:

Start with outcomes, not hours

Instead of "how many hours per month does this client need?" I ask "what does this client need to accomplish this year?"

Then we break those goals into specific projects:

• They need to improve donor communication → We'll redesign their donation page and create email templates

• They need to explain their impact better → We'll produce their annual report and create impact storytelling framework

• They need to launch a new program → We'll develop messaging, create marketing materials, and plan the announcement campaign

Each of these becomes a defined deliverable with scope, timeline, and price.

Price based on value and complexity, not time

I stopped thinking about hourly rates. Instead, I think about what the deliverable is worth to the client and how complex it is to execute well.

An annual report for a foundation might take 40 hours. But it's high-stakes, requires significant strategic thinking, and is their primary donor communication tool. That's worth more than "40 hours × hourly rate."

Conversely, updating their website footer might take 2 hours but isn't particularly complex or strategic. I'm not going to charge my full rate for that—I'll bundle it with other maintenance tasks.

This pricing feels more honest. Clients pay for outcomes they value, not for our time.

Build in revision rounds and communication

One concern with deliverable-based work is scope creep through endless revisions. We address this by being explicit:

"This package includes two rounds of revisions. Additional revisions are billed hourly at $150."

In practice, we almost never need to enforce this because clients are more thoughtful about feedback when they know there's a boundary. But having the structure prevents the ambiguity that plagued retainer relationships.

Similarly, we're clear about communication: "Includes monthly check-in calls and email support with 48-hour response time for questions."

This sets expectations while preventing the "always-on" feeling that retainers created.

Allow for flexibility through add-ons

Just because we don't do retainers doesn't mean we're inflexible. When clients need something outside defined deliverables, we have clear processes:

"We can absolutely help with that. Based on scope, it would be an additional $2,500. Should we add it to this quarter or next?"

Clear pricing for additional work makes the conversation straightforward. No awkwardness about whether it's "included." No resentment about scope creep. Just honest discussion about priorities and budget.

What This Model Does for Clients

The deliverable-based model serves mission-driven organizations better than retainers in several ways:

Clear accountability: They know exactly what they're getting and when. If we don't deliver, it's obvious. This creates much healthier accountability than the vague "ongoing support" promise.

Better budget planning: Finance teams can see exactly what they're paying for and tie it to organizational priorities. "Annual report: $8,000" is much easier to justify to a board than "Monthly marketing retainer: $3,000."

No waste: They're not paying for months when they don't need much support. They're paying for specific outcomes they've determined they need.

Clearer prioritization: When everything has a defined cost, it forces better prioritization. Do they really need that additional campaign, or would they rather invest in website improvements? With retainers, everything felt like it should be "included." With deliverables, trade-offs are explicit.

Easier to start and stop: If they need to pause work, we finish current deliverables and pick up again when ready. No awkward "pausing" of retainers or paying for months when nothing's happening.

What This Model Does for Us

The shift has been just as beneficial for Kern & Turn:

Better project planning: I know exactly what I'm committed to delivering and when. This makes capacity planning much clearer than the amorphous "ongoing support for 8 retainer clients."

Higher quality work: When I'm working toward a defined deliverable with a deadline, I focus on doing it well. With retainers, I was often doing "good enough" work to fill the monthly hours.

Clearer revenue forecasting: I can project annual revenue based on committed projects rather than hoping retainer clients don't pause or cancel mid-year.

Healthier boundaries: I'm not "always on" for retainer clients. I have defined projects with timelines, and I protect time to do deep work rather than being perpetually available for "quick things."

Better margins: Because I'm pricing based on value rather than hours, and because I'm motivated to work efficiently (finish faster = better hourly rate), the economics work better.

More satisfying relationships: Clients are happier because they're getting clear value. I'm happier because I'm delivering concrete outcomes rather than vague "support." The relationship feels more like partnership and less like ambiguous service contract.

When Retainers Might Still Make Sense

I'm not saying retainers are always wrong. There are situations where they might work better:

Very early-stage organizations that genuinely need flexible, ongoing support while they figure things out. Though even then, I'd probably structure it as a 3-month pilot with defined deliverables rather than open-ended retainer.

True fractional executive roles where you're essentially filling a staff position (fractional CMO, for instance) and the value is in ongoing availability rather than projects. Though I'd still define clear outcomes for each quarter.

Clients who have unpredictable, reactive needs and genuinely need someone on call. Though I've found this is rarer than people think—most "urgent" needs can wait 48 hours, which doesn't require a retainer.

In practice, for the kind of work Kern & Turn does with mission-driven organizations, deliverable-based projects almost always serve everyone better.

How We Structure Annual Relationships Now

Most of our clients work with us on annual partnerships that include multiple deliverables across the year. Here's what a typical structure looks like:

Discovery and planning (January): We do a comprehensive strategy session to identify priorities for the year and map out deliverables.

Quarterly deliverables (Feb-Dec): We deliver specific projects on a quarterly cadence—maybe an annual report in Q1, a fundraising campaign in Q2, website refresh in Q3, and end-of-year giving campaign in Q4.

Quarterly check-ins: We have strategy sessions each quarter to review what's working, adjust priorities if needed, and plan the next quarter's work.

Ongoing access for questions: Clients can email with questions and get responses within 48 hours. This isn't "unlimited consulting"—it's answering questions and providing guidance within reason.

Annual investment might be $30,000-50,000 depending on scope, broken into quarterly payments tied to deliverables.

This gives clients the continuity of an ongoing relationship without the ambiguity of a retainer. They know what they're getting. We know what we're delivering. Everyone has clarity.

The Uncomfortable Honesty

Shifting away from retainers meant accepting some uncomfortable truths:

Retainers were convenient for us, not necessarily good for clients. The predictable revenue and flexibility to adjust scope made our lives easier. But they weren't serving clients as well as deliverable-based work does.

We were sometimes hiding behind retainers. If I couldn't clearly define what value we provided each month, that was a problem with our value proposition, not a reason to keep the ambiguous billing structure.

Clear deliverables require clearer thinking. It's harder to define specific projects than to promise "ongoing support." But that difficulty is exactly why it's more valuable. It forces strategic thinking about what actually matters.

Some clients weren't good fits and retainers masked that. When we shifted to deliverables, it became obvious which relationships were genuinely productive and which were coasting on the inertia of monthly billing.

This clarity was painful in the moment but healthy long-term.

What This Means for Potential Clients

If you're considering working with Kern & Turn, here's what our deliverable-based model means for you:

You'll know exactly what you're paying for: We'll define specific outcomes, timelines, and costs upfront. No surprises, no ambiguity.

You'll have clear accountability: If we don't deliver what we promised when we promised it, you have every right to hold us accountable.

You'll make deliberate decisions about investment: Rather than paying monthly and hoping to get value, you'll decide which specific projects matter most to your mission and invest accordingly.

You'll get our best work: We're motivated to deliver excellent outcomes efficiently, not to fill hours or stretch projects to justify monthly fees.

You won't be locked into ongoing commitments: We can work together on a single project or build a multi-year partnership. Either way, you're choosing specific deliverables, not committing to indefinite monthly payments.

This model isn't for everyone. If you want someone always available for random urgent tasks, you probably need a staff person, not a strategic partner. But if you want excellent work on defined projects with clear accountability, this model serves you well.

Moving Forward

The shift from retainers to deliverable-based work was one of the best business decisions I've made. It's created healthier client relationships, better work quality, clearer accountability, and more sustainable revenue.

It required being more honest about what we actually provide, more strategic about what clients actually need, and more disciplined about defining clear outcomes rather than hiding behind vague "ongoing support."

Not every marketing firm will make this shift. Retainers work well for some models, some clients, some types of work. But for mission-driven organizations working with a small collective of problem solvers like Kern & Turn, deliverable-based projects create better partnerships.

If you're a mission-driven organization frustrated with agency retainers that feel expensive but vague, you're not alone. That frustration is valid. The ambiguity isn't serving you well.

And if you're a marketer or firm owner reading this wondering if there's a better model than retainers, there is. It requires more upfront thinking to define deliverables clearly. But it creates much healthier relationships and better work.

The question that started this whole shift—"Can you break down exactly what we're getting each month?"—still guides everything we do. If I can't clearly answer that question, we haven't structured the work correctly.

Clarity is better than convenience. For everyone involved.