Adaptability beats forecasting.

Contracts age. Steering keeps them alive.

Four-year agency contracts are the norm. And for good reasons.

Stability helps. Good relationships take time. Teams learn to work together. Campaign knowledge compounds.

But four years is also a very long time in advertising. One example: Between 2010 and 2014, platforms like Google, Facebook, Instagram—and later TikTok—scaled at a pace no contract had anticipated. Entire channels went from marginal to dominant within a single contract cycle.

Contracts did not fail to adapt to these new channels because they were poorly designed.

They failed because they were designed once. And the environment did not stand still.

A kid’s question

I remember asking my father a question when I was nine. He was driving. I was sitting in the passenger seat as we approached a bend in the road.

After we passed it, I asked:

“Before the curve, did you know exactly how much you would need to turn the wheel?”

He looked surprised.

“Of course not,” he said.

“You slow down before the curve. Then you adjust as you see how it unfolds. And you accelerate once you see the exit.”

Driving is not about predicting the curve. It relies on entering it with enough control to adapt.

Contracts are not designed to adapt.

Agency contracts are built as if the road ahead were known.

They define scope, fees, incentives, and KPIs.

They either try to anticipate the future shape of the system or assume it will stay put.

This is necessary. But then, no contract stays relevant for four years in a system that changes as fast as media.

This is because while platforms evolve, algorithms change, trading models shift and advertisers’ internal priorities move, the contract stays still.

This is not about forecasting.

This is not a forecasting problem. Better forecasting does not solve it and more detailed scopes can’t solve either.

Because the issue is not how well you predicted the curve but if the car your riding with your agency can be steered or not.

Every contract becomes outdated. The only question is how quickly and what happens when it does.

In most cases, the contract drifts away from reality. Incentives start to misalign as innovation slows because it does not fit the scope. Decisions optimise for what the contract allows, not for what the market requires.

Nobody breaks the contract. But the contract quietly helps break the relationship.

Governance matters as much as design.

This is why governance matters as much as design.

A contract defines the initial geometry, then, governance is what keeps it aligned over time.

It introduces adjustment through reinterpretation, rebalancing of incentives and incorporation of what did not exist when the contract was signed. Continuously.

Because the system moves continuously.

This leads to two questions.

The question is not only: Did we design a good contract?

But also: Do we have the ability to steer it as reality changes?

Many advertisers invest heavily in getting the contract right but few invest in keeping it right.

That is the gap where most value is lost.

Because in media, as in driving:

You do not avoid risk by predicting the curve.

You manage it by steering through it.