Hiring That Silver-Bullet Salesperson.

It's been an odd start to the year in agency-land. I'm seeing almost a perfect 50/50 split between agencies having some of the strongest months they've had, and those who are really starting to struggle. Combine that with the wild uncertainty at the moment, and anyone could be forgiven for having a tough time managing it.

I've been there, I know what it's like. And I know there are plenty of us struggling with burnout or anxiety atm. If you're running an agency and feel as though chatting with someone over a coffee or video call would help, book it in. I promise not to pitch you.

Today's main topic - new business. More specifically, lead generation, and whether or not hiring that salesperson will be a silver bullet for your business (it probably won't be).

Let's talk about new business

One of the most common challenges that comes up with agency owners is new business. How do we generate more opportunities? How do we convert better? How do we build a real pipeline, rather than a few deals that happen to land each quarter? How can we make all of this more consistent?

More often than not, it ends up at the same question: should we just hire an experienced salesperson?

It's an appealing idea, right? Bring in someone with a strong network (the famed 'black book') and a track record, and let them take it off your plate. They'll open doors, fill the pipeline, and allow you to focus on other parts of the business - or just to sleep better at night.

That's the theory at least. In practice, it rarely works like that.

Red herring with a black book

There are a few reasons it doesn't work out, and a lot of them are to do with timing.

Sales cycles in agencies are often longer than people assume, which means a 6–12 month window isn't much time to show meaningful results. Even if someone has strong relationships, that doesn't mean those clients are in-market or ready to move. And even when the relationships are there, good operators tend to be protective of them (it's their reputation at risk after all). They want to see that the agency can deliver before they start making introductions, which is entirely reasonable.

What you're left with is a fairly expensive bet. By the time you factor in salary, commission, and the cost of supporting their activity, it's easy to spend a couple hundred thousand dollars without actually addressing the core issue.

The core issue usually isn't that you don't have a salesperson.

It's that you don't have a consistent source of demand.

Building a pipeline

Most agencies are still heavily reliant on founder networks, referrals, and the occasional inbound lead. That can work for a period of time, but it's inherently unpredictable. Hiring a salesperson doesn't fix that. It just puts pressure on one person to create opportunities out of thin air, without the support of any meaningful demand generation system.

The more reliable approach is less exciting, but it tends to work:

Treat your agency like a client and invest in marketing it properly.

That doesn't just mean running a few ads. It means doing the same things you'd recommend to your own clients: getting clear on who you're trying to reach, building a position that resonates, and showing up consistently enough that people remember you when it matters.

The channels will vary depending on the agency, but the principle is the same. You're trying to build familiarity and credibility over time, so that when a client decides to go to market, you're already on the list (or maybe you've done such a good job that you manage to bypass the list).

It takes time, but it's a more effective and more resilient approach. Let's imagine for a second that your 'gun salesperson' did actually work out - do you really want your agency's entire revenue generation function to hinge on one single employee who could jump ship at any time?

Back to my preferred approach: from an investment point of view, it's usually not dissimilar to what people were prepared to spend on the experienced salesperson anyway. Three to five percent of revenue is a reasonable guide, and in many cases that's enough to bring in a senior marketing lead on a part-time basis, with budget left over for execution.

That structure tends to work well. A senior person sets direction, prioritises how to go to market, and makes sure things actually happen. Execution can then sit with internal team members or external partners, depending on capability and capacity. The important part is that it's owned and treated as a priority. When agencies try to do all of this internally without clear ownership, it almost always slips behind client work.

You might still need a salesperson

If everything's working how it should and you have a real desire to step away from the bulk of sales work, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't hire in this function at all.

The model I've seen work most consistently is bringing in someone a little earlier in their career, having them work alongside the founder, and giving them time to learn the business properly. They start by supporting, then gradually take on more responsibility as both their capability and the volume of opportunities increases.

By the time your marketing is generating a steady flow of inbound, you've got someone who understands how to convert it.

It might take a year or two, but getting to this point is where you've built something a lot more resilient, reliable, and long lasting for your business. Opportunities are coming in from a market that already knows who you are. The sales process becomes more about converting opportunities than creating them from nothing. The founder can step back from the day-to-day without losing visibility or control. And the new-business side of things starts to feel less reliant on any one point of failure.

Nothing I've said is original or groundbreaking - you probably already knew it

If a client came to you with no clear positioning, inconsistent marketing, and very little brand presence, and asked you to fix their growth by running a Google Ads campaign, you'd push back. You'd tell them it doesn't work like that.

The same applies here.

There isn't a silver bullet for new business. The agencies that build a steady pipeline are the ones that invest in creating demand first, and then adding the right sales capability over the top of it.

A final note on sequencing

If you follow what I've suggested, I'm pretty confident you'll see a great outcome - at least in terms of new business opportunities.

A great way to waste all of this time, effort, and money, is to take on more work than your agency is set up to manage. By that I mean not having the right systems/processes/people on the client service or delivery side to ensure the reality of working with you matches up with the promises made in your marketing material and sales process.

In fact, if you're getting more clients into your agency than ever before, and you're disappointing most of them, you're putting yourself in a worse position than when you started. And if this is you, I'd hazard that you're probably also not generating the sort of profit you're hoping for either.

So it's worth getting your back-of-house in order at the same time as you're investing into your agency brand. That's what will lead to long-term growth and business success.