Platform cost does not scale
One agency subscription covers your client workspaces. Your eleventh client does not add a licence, and neither does your eleventh employee.
What that model assumes
A $500 retainer is a placeholder, not a recommendation.
Put your own number in. The point of the table is not the margin figure — it is that the platform cost is flat while your billing scales with clients, so every client after the first improves the ratio.
Delivery cost is not included
The margin above is before your people. It is a platform-cost comparison, not a business model. Your strategists still cost what they cost.
Agent work is metered
Credits are the one thing that scales with usage. A very heavy client can consume more than an average one — worth watching before you fix a retainer.
How multi-client actually works
Each client is a separate tenant, not a tag on shared data.
This matters more than it sounds. Client separation enforced at the database level means you can hand a client access to their own workspace without any risk that a mistake exposes another client's pipeline.
Isolated data per client
Each workspace has its own database schema. Contacts, deals and campaigns cannot bleed between clients.
Brand context per client
Every client has its own brand voice, personas and products, so agents write in the right voice without being reminded.
Approvals per client
Set different autonomy levels per client — some let you publish directly, others want to approve everything.
“Charging per seat punishes an agency for growing. Your team size is the one number that should never appear on a platform invoice.”
Why unlimited users matters most here
What your clients see
Execution got cheap. Clients now pay for thinking.
AI made production cheap, so clients question paying for execution alone. A written strategy and a monthly plan-vs-actual report is what they renew against — and it is the work that used to eat your most expensive people’s hours.
A written strategy per client
Targets, audiences, budget and channel roles in a document the client signs off. Darwin writes the first draft in hours; your strategists shape it.
Plan-vs-actual reports, monthly
Where each target stands against the plan the client approved, by channel. No invented numbers — where the data is not there, it says so.
Approvals before launch
Account leads or the client approve assets before anything goes live, set per client rather than globally.
Whether this fits you
A good fit if…
Where the model works
- You run retainers across many clients and your margin is squeezed by tool costs per client.
- Your team is growing and per-seat pricing is punishing you for it.
- You want to deliver more per client without hiring proportionally.
- You are consolidating a different stack for every client you inherited.
Probably not if…
Be honest about these
- You need deep white-label control today. Ask us exactly what is re-brandable before you build a proposal around it.
- Your clients demand a specific incumbent platform by name in the contract.
- You have one or two very large clients rather than many mid-sized ones — the economics here favour breadth.
- You need SOC 2 Type II to win your own deals. We hold Type I, not Type II — what we do and do not hold →
Three levels of AI
Manual, supervised or autonomous. Your call.
Autonomy is a setting, not a plan tier. Set it per campaign, per module or across the whole workspace, and change it whenever you like.
Manual
You do it
Every module keeps a full manual path. Build the campaign yourself and use the AI for nothing more than a second opinion.
Nothing runs unless you run it
Supervised
It drafts, you approve
The default. Agents research, write and schedule, then everything waits in your approvals queue until someone signs off.
Default on every plan
Autonomous
It runs inside your guardrails
Hand over end-to-end execution within the limits you set — budget caps, send windows, channels, spend. Stop it in one click at any time.
You set the limits first