I met a founder who pays €25,000 every month to his Meta consultant. On top of the €100,000 he spends on ads every month.
Most people hear that and immediately judge the fee. I get it. For that kind of money you would expect a very sharp account.
This one was not sharp. ROAS was barely above break even. Scaling made it worse. Creatives died in days.
I kept telling the founder to fire the guy. The team kept saying it was fine, at least they were profitable.
No. If you pay someone €25,000 a month and the account still looks like that, you fire them.
I was ready to write the email myself.
Except there was nobody to fire
There was no consultant.
On €100,000 of monthly spend, the difference between 107% ROAS and 132% ROAS is already €25,000.
That was the fee. Paid in full, every month, to Meta. For the privilege of good enough.
So I had spent the whole conversation wanting to fire a man who did not exist. The actual consultant was Meta: the only one that can underperform, charge more, give you fewer answers, and still get renewed on Monday.
Why this gap survives
Because nobody sends you a receipt for opportunity cost.
An underperforming agency invoice arrives once a month with a number on it, and it gets questioned. The same amount lost to a ROAS gap arrives as nothing at all. The account is profitable, the dashboard is green, and the difference between the account you have and the account you could have never appears as a line item.
The arithmetic is worth running on your own account before the next quarter starts:
- Take your monthly paid spend
- Take your current blended ROAS
- Take the ROAS you believe the account should reach at this spend level
- Multiply the gap by the spend
Whatever comes out is what good enough is costing you this month, and it will cost you the same next month unless something changes. If that number is larger than what serious help would cost, you already have your answer.