Scope Gaps That Turn Into Surprise Agency Fees: Common Scope-of-Work Mistakes

Editorial team Spend Ledger

Why a scope of work matters

An agency relationship can involve account setup, campaign management, creative production, reporting and work on the pages people reach after clicking an ad. A proposal may mention these activities without defining what they include. That leaves room for different expectations: a client may assume a task is part of the agreed service, while the agency treats it as extra work.

A scope of work is not just a list of deliverables. It should explain what the agency will do, what the client must provide, how requests are handled and when additional fees may apply. It should also distinguish work on the advertising account from work on the business’s website, analytics, creative assets and other systems. An agency-provided account does not, by itself, clarify which services are included or who is responsible for them.

Before work begins, review the proposal and any attached terms together. Look for broad phrases such as “creative support,” “ongoing optimisation” or “full reporting.” Ask what each phrase means in practice. The wording fixes below are starting points for discussion; they should be adapted to the actual work and recorded in writing.

Mistake: Treating creative production as an unlimited service

A scope may say that the agency will “support creative” or “produce ad assets” without saying what counts as an asset, who supplies the source material or how revisions are handled. The client may expect concepts, copy, design, video editing and adaptations for every placement. The agency may understand the same phrase to cover only ad copy or minor edits to materials the client supplies.

The consequence is a disagreement when a campaign needs new formats, a different concept or another round of changes. Work that seems essential to the client can be treated as outside the engagement, with added fees or delays. The parties may also discover that they have different assumptions about who owns finished materials and whether editable source files are included.

A plain wording fix could be:

> “The agreed creative work includes the specific deliverables listed in the proposal, using materials supplied by the client. New concepts, additional formats, substantial revisions, production and source files are excluded unless agreed in writing, with the fee and schedule confirmed before work begins.”

The proposal should also say who obtains permissions for images, footage, music, logos and other supplied materials. If the agency is expected to create assets, clarify the review process and who gives final approval. Avoid relying on broad labels such as “creative included” when the actual output matters to the campaign and the budget.

Mistake: Leaving reporting vague

“Monthly reporting” can mean a brief summary, a dashboard, a meeting, an analysis of results or recommendations for future work. It may also be unclear which data sources are used, who checks tracking and whether the agency will explain differences between platform reporting and the client’s own records.

Without a shared definition, the client may expect analysis that the agency has not priced, while the agency may deliver a report that is technically complete but not useful for decisions. Disputes can also arise when tracking is incomplete or when results cannot be compared cleanly across systems. Reporting cannot resolve a measurement issue that has not been identified or agreed.

A plain wording fix could be:

> “Reporting will cover the agreed campaign measures and include a written summary of performance, changes made and recommended next steps. The client is responsible for access to and accuracy of its business records unless tracking work is separately included. Any additional analysis or reporting format requires written approval.”

Name the measures and sources in the scope where possible, rather than leaving them to interpretation. Clarify whether meetings are included, who attends and whether the agency will investigate tracking problems. If the client needs reporting for internal finance or leadership purposes, say so before the proposal is finalised.

Mistake: Assuming landing page work is part of campaign management

A campaign may send visitors to a page that needs new copy, a different layout, a form, tracking changes or technical fixes. Yet a scope focused on advertising account management may not include any website work. Even phrases such as “landing page optimisation” can be unclear: they might mean recommendations only, or they might mean design, implementation and testing.

The consequence is that the agency may identify a page problem but not be responsible for fixing it. The client may expect changes to be made directly, while the agency expects the client’s web team to implement recommendations. If no one owns the task, campaign work can continue while the page remains unchanged.

A plain wording fix could be:

> “Landing page services are limited to the items expressly listed here. Recommendations do not include design, copywriting, development, implementation or technical troubleshooting unless those services are separately approved. The client is responsible for assigning a person to implement excluded changes.”

Also clarify who controls page access, who approves changes and who checks that forms and tracking work after an update. If the agency is only advising, say that plainly. If implementation is included, define its boundaries and how requests beyond them will be assessed.

Mistake: Confusing setup with ongoing management

“Account setup and management” can blur two different kinds of work. Setup may include permissions, campaign structure, tracking configuration and initial checks. Ongoing management may involve monitoring, adjustments, testing and communication. A proposal that combines these without distinguishing them can leave both the start and the continuing service unclear.

The client may assume that an initial setup fee covers continued maintenance, or that a monthly management fee includes a complete rebuild whenever the business changes direction. The agency may consider substantial restructuring or troubleshooting a separate project. This is particularly important when an agency provides access to an advertising account: access to an account does not automatically define ownership, responsibilities, service levels or what happens when the engagement ends.

A plain wording fix could be:

> “Initial setup covers the tasks listed in the setup section and ends when those tasks are completed and reviewed. Ongoing management covers the recurring activities listed in the management section. Rebuilds, migrations, unusual troubleshooting and work caused by changes outside the agreed plan require separate written approval.”

The agreement should identify who owns the account and its underlying business assets, who has administrative access and what access remains with the client. It should also explain how work and access are handled at the end of the relationship. These points should be settled in writing, not inferred from who created the account or paid an invoice.

Mistake: Adding markets or platforms without defining the change

A scope may describe a campaign for one market or advertising platform, then later refer broadly to “expansion” or “additional channels.” The parties may not agree on whether a new market or platform is a routine adjustment or a separate piece of work. Different audiences, languages, approval processes, creative requirements and account structures can change the workload.

The consequence can be an unexpected fee, an incomplete launch or pressure to extend the original plan without revisiting responsibilities. The client might think the agency is already managing the new activity because it falls under the same business objective. The agency may see it as a distinct project requiring more planning, coordination or support.

A plain wording fix could be:

> “The current scope applies only to the markets and platforms identified in the proposal. Adding a market or platform requires a written change request describing the work, client inputs, fees and revised schedule. No additional work begins until both parties approve that change.”

Ask the agency to explain what will need to change before expansion: account structure, creative, tracking, language review, reporting or internal coordination. The agreement should also make clear that any new work remains subject to the relevant platform’s rules and checks. A broader scope does not override those requirements.

Mistake: Leaving rush requests and response expectations open

A client may assume that urgent campaign changes will be handled immediately, while the agency has not promised a particular response time or reserved capacity for emergencies. “Responsive support” is not a clear service commitment. Nor does a request become part of the regular scope simply because it is important to the client.

The result may be frustration, a rush fee or work being delayed while the parties decide what to do. Last-minute requests can also affect the quality of review and coordination, especially when they depend on approvals, assets or access from the client. An agency should not be expected to skip platform checks or other required processes because a request is urgent.

A plain wording fix could be:

> “Routine requests will be handled through the agreed communication process. Urgent work, work outside normal planning and requests that require reprioritising scheduled tasks are not included unless the agency confirms availability, any added fee and the expected delivery timing in writing.”

Define how requests are submitted and who can approve additional spend or changes in priority. If urgent support matters to the business, ask the agency to describe what is available and what it costs rather than relying on an informal expectation. The wording should leave room for required review and approval steps.

Mistake: Agreeing to extra work without a change process

Even a detailed scope cannot anticipate every need. The problem is not that new work arises; it is that the parties begin it without recording what changed. A message asking for “one small adjustment” can lead to a larger task, while the client and agency may remember different agreements about its cost or timing.

A simple change process can prevent that ambiguity. It should identify the requested work, explain what is included and excluded, state any fee and schedule implications, and name the person authorised to approve it. The agency should confirm those terms before proceeding, and the client should have an opportunity to decline or defer the request.

A plain wording fix could be:

> “Changes to the agreed scope must be described and approved in writing by the authorised contacts before the agency starts the additional work. The change request will state the deliverables, client responsibilities, fees and timing. If it is not approved, the existing scope remains in effect.”

Keep the proposal, scope, change requests and approvals together so both sides can refer to the same record. When a dispute arises, return to the written terms and clarify the gap before more work proceeds. Clear boundaries do not guarantee that every project will go smoothly, but they make responsibilities and costs easier to discuss before they become a surprise.