This is a very real governance problem ignored almost always: when the same internal team that needs an external service is also the one that selects, manages, and evaluates that service, incentives get distorted.
They may avoid providers who challenge them, choose “friendly” agencies that flatter them, or hide poor internal decisions. And agencies, on the other side, often try to keep the client dependent rather than deliver uncomfortable truths.
A healthier model exists — but companies rarely design it intentionally.
Why the current setup fails
Three structural issues usually create the dysfunction we’re describing:
- Conflict of interest — The team buying the service is also the one whose performance will be judged by the results. They naturally avoid partners who might expose weaknesses.
- Information asymmetry — SEO, analytics, and marketing tech are complex. Internal teams may not have the expertise to judge quality, so they choose based on comfort, not competence.
- Agency incentives — Many agencies optimize for retention, not impact. They flatter, over-report, and under-deliver because the client team rewards “smooth relationship” over “hard truth”.
This combination leads to wasted budget, stagnation, and a false sense of progress.
Who should be responsible for outsourcing?
There are three viable governance models. Each solves the conflict in a different way.
Centralized procurement + independent technical oversight
Best for large companies.
- Procurement handles vendor selection, contracts, pricing, and compliance.
- A separate independent expert (internal or external) evaluates the technical quality of proposals and ongoing performance.
- The SEO team provides requirements but does not control the final decision.
Why it works:
The team using the service can’t hide behind friendly agencies, and agencies know they’re being evaluated by someone competent.
Internal “Center of Excellence” (CoE)
Best when the company has multiple marketing teams.
- A small, highly skilled internal group sets standards, evaluates agencies, and audits results.
- Operational teams (like SEO) request services but don’t choose the provider alone.
- The CoE ensures consistency, quality, and accountability.
Why it works:
The CoE has no stake in protecting the SEO team’s ego or decisions. Their job is quality, not politics.
External auditor or advisor
Best when internal expertise is weak or politics are strong.
- The company hires an independent consultant whose only job is to evaluate agencies, KPIs, and performance.
- They do not deliver SEO work themselves — only oversight.
- They report to leadership, not to the SEO team.
Why it works:
The auditor has no incentive to flatter anyone. Their value comes from honesty and clarity.
How to prevent agencies from “keeping you on the hook”
Regardless of the governance model, three mechanisms protect the company:
- Clear, measurable KPIs tied to business outcomes, not vanity metrics.
(e.g., “organic revenue from non-branded queries” instead of “rankings”.) - Quarterly independent performance reviews by someone outside the SEO team.
- Short, renewable contracts with performance-based extensions.
- Transparency requirements: access to raw data, dashboards, and change logs.
These remove the agency’s ability to hide behind pretty reports.
The deeper insight
The real issue isn’t SEO or marketing — it’s organizational design.
When incentives are misaligned, even good people make bad decisions.
The solution is to separate the roles of:
- defining the need,
- selecting the provider,
- evaluating the results.
When one team controls all three, you get exactly the problem you described.