The model

Equity Partnership Versus A Growth Agency

A growth agency is paid monthly and keeps what it builds. Magnor Equity Partners holds equity, runs the sales team, and leaves the infrastructure inside the company. This compares the two on cost, incentive, scope, and what remains after the relationship ends.

Founders comparing Magnor Equity Partners to a growth agency are comparing two different transactions. One buys work by the month. The other trades ownership for an operating function. The mechanics diverge in four places.

How does the money work in each?

A growth agency invoices monthly and bills whether revenue moves or not. Magnor Equity Partners takes a minority equity position and no retainer, so the firm is paid when the company is worth more.

Growth agency Magnor Equity Partners
Cash cost Monthly retainer plus ad spend Ad spend only
Ownership given up None Minority equity position
Paid when The invoice is sent The company is worth more
Term Usually 3 to 12 months Open ended
Runs the sales team No Yes
Systems after it ends Leave with the agency Stay in the company

Why does the incentive difference change the work?

An agency optimises for the renewal, which lands a few months out. That pushes toward whatever reports well quickly: lead volume, cost per lead, impressions. Magnor Equity Partners holds equity with no exit date, so the work that pays is the work that compounds: a trained sales team, a CRM that holds follow up, an offer that closes at a higher rate.

Those two goals conflict most visibly on lead quality. Cheap leads improve an agency’s dashboard and lower a company’s close rate at the same time.

Who runs the sales team?

Magnor Equity Partners runs it. Agencies do not, with rare exceptions, and that is the single largest structural difference. An agency hands over leads at the CRM boundary and reports on what it delivered. If the reps do not call within five minutes, or the follow up stops at two attempts, that shows up as a lead quality complaint rather than as a management problem.

When is a growth agency the better choice?

A growth agency is the better choice in three cases. Magnor Equity Partners says so directly, because the wrong structure wastes a year for both sides.

The offer is not proven yet
Testing an offer is cheap and fast with an agency, and there is nothing to take equity in.
One channel needs specialist depth
A single specialist channel, run well, does not need an operating partner.
The founder will not give up equity
That is a reasonable position. It rules out the partnership and nothing else.

What does Magnor Equity Partners require that an agency does not?

Access, and a real say. The firm hires and fires sales reps, rebuilds the CRM, and changes follow up sequences without asking each time. Founders who want approval on every change get more out of an agency, and should hire one.

Read the Magnor Equity Partners model for the full scope, or the frequently asked questions for the shorter version.

Questions about equity partnerships versus agencies

Is an equity partnership cheaper than a growth agency?

An equity partnership costs no cash and a permanent share of the company. An agency costs cash and no ownership. For a company that will be worth several multiples more in three years, the agency is cheaper. For one that stays flat, the agency costs more.

Can a company work with Magnor Equity Partners and an agency at once?

Yes, when the agency runs a channel the firm is not running. Two parties running paid advertising against the same pipeline creates attribution fights and duplicate spend. Magnor Equity Partners takes over the four functions in its scope and leaves the rest alone.

What happens to the systems if the partnership ends?

The systems stay with the company. Ad accounts, the CRM configuration, the sequences, the scripts, and the trained reps all live inside the partner company. Magnor Equity Partners keeps its equity position, which is the reason the systems are built to outlast the involvement.