Order a free copy of the Positionless Marketing book
Read time 9 minutes
Let AI decide the next best action.
Why it matters:
By reading this post, marketers will gain insights into the differences between the value created by a marketing agency and that of a vendor-led services team. In short, the agency is driven to make the marketer dependent. The vendor-led team is driven to make the marketer independent and able to run and manage a marketing platform on their own.
This post examines why the agency model keeps brands in the passenger seat, and how Optimove's unified platform and services offering puts marketers in the driver’s seat.
Key takeaways:
Learn more about Optimove's Unified Platform & Services Offering
Watch Moshe Demri, Optimove's GM, SVP of Global Revenue, discuss how marketers can replace multiple technology licenses and agency retainers with a single, accountable partnership:
Just like Formula 1 teams do not hand a world-class car to a driver they have never trained and expect podium finishes, powerful martech platforms do not just hand the platform to a marketer and expect them to be an instant expert.
In the case of auto racing, the car is only half the equation. What wins races is the combination of engineering excellence and a driver who has put in the laps, knows the handling, and can push the machine to its limits without putting it into the wall.
Yet that is almost exactly how most enterprise brands buy marketing technology. They invest in a world-class platform, hand the keys to an outside agency, and wonder why they lose control of their marketing programs.
The problem is structural. Agencies are built to stay in the race with you, but not wean you. Vendor-led services are designed to teach your team to drive.
Often, when a brand runs its CRM through an agency, institutional knowledge like the campaigns, the segmentation, the platform configuration, and the performance benchmarks accumulates inside the agency's team. When the contract ends, that knowledge walks out the door. The brand is left holding a platform it does not fully understand and a team that has never been trained to operate it independently.
Gartner's 2025 Marketing Technology Survey shows that marketers are only using 49% of their stack, and that in 2023, that figure stood at 33%. While it is an improvement, that still means half of a company's capability is essentially wasted, and this should be considered a major problem. Agency-led execution is one of the reasons why. When someone else is doing the driving, the internal team never learns the track.
When the technology and the services come from multiple vendors, the blame game slows everything down. Is this a platform issue or a configuration problem? That question and the time it takes to answer it when two different companies are pointing at each other is a very expensive issue that brands absorb quietly.
AI has raised the ceiling on what marketing platforms can do. It has also raised the floor on what it takes to operate them well.
Running an AI decisioning engine is not a more sophisticated version of building a campaign brief. It is a different job. It requires marketers to define agent parameters, govern automated decisions, and build organizational confidence in outcomes that no individual person approved.
AI does not run itself. It performs only when the setup is right, the governance model exists, and someone on the marketing team understands what the agent is optimizing for. That understanding does not come from watching an agency operate the tool. It comes from operating it yourself.
The pattern across enterprise marketing organizations is consistent. A CMO with a transformation vision. A board asking for the AI strategy. A front-line marketing team still grinding the same manual campaign process it ran three years ago.
Buying the software does not close that gap. Hiring an agency to run the software does not close it either. It just relocates the problem off-site, where it costs more and compounds quietly.
A vendor-led services team works on different commercial logic. The software company's revenue depends on platform subscriptions, not service retainers. If a client is still leaning heavily on the vendor's services team 36 months into a contract, that is a failure signal for the vendor. Not a revenue win.
A client who cannot drive the platform independently is a client who is not getting full value from it. A client who is not getting full value is an at-risk renewal. The commercial incentive and the client's outcome are aligned in a way that does not hold for a pure-services relationship.
This is how Optimove's unified platform and services offering is structured. The same data engineers, CRM strategists, and platform specialists who built the software work inside the client's operation for a defined period. Because they come from the company that built the platform, the alignment between capability and execution is native. No translation layer. No blame cycle. When something does not work, the same organization that built the platform fixes the configuration.
There is also an accountability argument. Brands that distribute responsibility across a platform vendor, a system integrator, and a creative agency end up owning the gaps between all three. That complexity has a cost. In time. In management overhead. In the campaigns that never got made, while everyone was on a call, figuring out whose problem it was.
The defining feature of the offering is the handover model. The engagement is structured around a maturity curve with three phases. In each phase, the balance shifts from Optimove executing to the client's team operating independently. The 24-month timeline is not a sales tactic. It is the realistic timeline for a marketing organization to move from limited platform adoption to confident independent operation.
Optimove drives. Implementation, data integration, campaign configuration, and execution are all handled by specialists who already know the platform. The client's team does not wait for hiring cycles or training programs to start seeing results. Campaigns go live quickly. Performance data accumulates immediately. Meanwhile, the internal team is in the car, watching, learning, asking questions, but not yet responsible for the outcome.
This phase is designed to deliver quick wins. The value proposition is not "trust us for two years and then you'll see results." It is "here is what the platform can do with our team running it, starting now."
The client's team takes progressive ownership. Optimove's specialists shift from executing to coaching, reviewing work, advising on strategy, and being available when something unfamiliar comes up. The internal team gets hands-on experience with real campaigns and real stakes, not sandbox training that bears no resemblance to production conditions.
The internal team moves from passenger to driver, one campaign at a time.
Where clients want to build their team, Optimove helps. That can mean helping define the role requirements for a new CRM hire, sitting in interviews, or helping onboard someone new to the platform.
The goal is for the internal team to arrive at Phase 3 with the skills, the context, and the confidence to drive independently.
The client's team drives. Optimove scales back its role as a platform vendor. Campaigns run internally. The governance model is set. The agents are configured and understood. What remains is the standard SaaS relationship: product updates, support, and the ongoing development of platform capabilities.
Some clients choose to keep a lighter services arrangement for specific functions after the handover: advanced data science, seasonal campaign surges, or new market launches. That is a client choice, not a commercial dependency. At this point, the client’s team is setting the pace.
When evaluating whether to extend an agency relationship, bring on a new one, or consider vendor-led services, the right questions are about structure rather than capability. Most agencies and most vendor services teams have capable people. The question is what those people are incentivized to produce. Here’s what to ask.
These questions sort out agencies from vendor-led services faster than any capability matrix. The answers point in fundamentally different directions depending on the structure of the relationship. Those directions compound over two years.
The difference between an agency and a vendor-led services team is not about capability. It is about the incentive structure. Agencies grow when clients stay dependent. Vendor-led services grow when clients become independent.
For brands trying to build internal capability on an AI-powered platform that will define how they compete for the next decade, that difference is everything.
Optimove's Unified Platform & Services Offering is structured around one outcome: a marketing team that owns the platform, drives it at full pace, and does not need anyone else in the car.
On your mark, get set, go, the sequence has a finish line. The race has a finish line, and your team should be the one to cross it.
For more insights, contact us to request a demo.
This is the third blog in Optimove's Unified Platform & Services Offering series. Check out the first two:
The most advanced orchestration engine, ever.
Unified data, AI decisioning, and Self-Optimizing Journeys — all in one.
Rony Vexelman is Optimove’s VP of Marketing. Rony leads Optimove’s marketing strategy across regions and industries.
Previously, Rony was Optimove's Director of Product Marketing leading product releases, customer marketing efforts and analyst relations. Rony holds a BA in Business Administration and Sociology from Tel Aviv University and an MBA from UCLA Anderson School of Management.
FAQ
What is the difference between vendor-led marketing services and a marketing agency?
The core difference is the incentive structure. Agencies generate revenue from ongoing involvement, so longer engagements benefit their business. Vendor-led services are attached to a software subscription model, meaning the vendor's long-term revenue depends on the client running the platform independently. Vendor services are built to transfer capability and step back — agencies are built to stay in.
How long does it take to become independent with Optimove's Unified Platform & Services Offering?
Optimove structures the engagement around a 24-month maturity curve with three phases. Phase 1 (months 1 to 6) sees Optimove's team driving execution while the client's team learns. Phase 2 (months 7 to 18) shifts to co-pilot mode, with the internal team taking progressive ownership. Phase 3 (months 18 to 24) hands full control to the client. Value is delivered from Phase 1 — independence is built by the end of the cycle.
Why does AI make the marketing technology skills gap harder to close?
AI-powered platforms require a different operating model than traditional campaign tools. Marketers need to define agent parameters, govern automated decisions, and build organizational confidence in AI-driven outcomes — tasks that are structurally different from building and submitting campaign briefs. Most teams have not been trained for this, and most agency relationships are not designed to teach it.
No. The offering is designed to accelerate the client's internal team and build their capability, not substitute for it. During Phase 1, Optimove's specialists handle execution while the internal team learns the platform in a live environment. The end state of the engagement is a capable in-house operation that owns the platform and drives it independently.
What happens if a client wants to keep some services after the 24-month cycle?
Some clients choose to retain a lighter services arrangement for specific functions — advanced data science, new market launches, or seasonal campaign periods. That is a client choice, not a dependency that the commercial model requires. After the maturity cycle, the relationship reverts to a standard SaaS arrangement. The platform runs. The team drives.
