Once agency owners start questioning the volume-based growth model, the next feeling is often confusion rather than clarity.
If this model doesn’t fit anymore, why did it work for so long? And why does it still seem like so many agencies are following it without question?
The answer isn’t that agencies misunderstood growth.
It’s that the model they inherited was designed for conditions that no longer exist.
What the Original Growth Model Was Built to Solve
By “volume-based growth,” I’m referring to the long-standing assumption that agency growth happens by adding more: more clients, more people, more services, in order to increase revenue and stability.
For a long time, that approach was logical.
Execution was expensive. Expertise was harder to access. Clients relied heavily on agencies to do things they could not reasonably do themselves.
In that environment, growth through volume made sense.
More clients created more revenue. More people created more capacity. Scale created leverage and stability.
Hiring wasn’t just a growth move; it was a way to manage risk. Broad services weren’t a lack of focus. They were a practical response to how demand actually showed up.
The model worked because execution itself created differentiation.
And when a system works for long enough, it stops being questioned.
When a Good Model Becomes the Default
Over time, this approach didn’t just persist. It became the default.
Agencies that scaled headcount got attention. Revenue milestones tied to size became shorthand for success. Growth stories centered on expansion, reach, and output.
Gradually, an unspoken equation took hold.
Growth equals more.
More clients. More people. More services. More motion.
That equation didn’t spread because it was always the best fit. It spread because it was familiar, visible, and easy to explain.
And once a model becomes the default, people stop asking whether it actually fits the kind of business they’re trying to build.
The Cost of Using a Model Past Its Prime
The environment agencies operate in today looks very different from the one this model was built for.
Execution is more accessible. Tools are faster and cheaper. Clients are more informed. Standing out is harder to sustain.
In this context, volume no longer automatically creates leverage. In many cases, it creates fragmentation.
More clients introduce more coordination cost. Broader services dilute focus. Larger teams increase complexity.
Instead of creating stability, growth can make the business feel more brittle, even when revenue is increasing.
On paper, things look better. In practice, they often feel harder.
And because this model has been the default for so long, that friction is rarely attributed to the model itself.
Why This Starts to Feel Personal
When a model stops working as well as it used to, people rarely blame the model.
They blame themselves.
You assume you need to be more confident, more visible, more disciplined, or more strategic. You look around and see others who appear to be growing and wonder what you’re missing.
Because the industry offers very few visible alternatives, that friction gets internalized.
Growth starts to feel confusing instead of clarifying. Success starts to feel fragile instead of grounding.
Not because something is wrong with you but because you’re pushing against the limits of a model that no longer fits your reality.
This is where many Small But Mighty agencies find themselves today.
Why Some Agencies Feel Out of Place Even When They’re Doing Well
Many Small But Mighty agencies don’t see themselves reflected in the dominant definition of success.
You don’t want growth that requires constant expansion or a business that only works at a certain size. You don’t want success that demands ongoing sacrifice just to keep things moving.
That misalignment doesn’t mean you’re behind. It means you’re building toward a different outcome.
Accidental Growth vs. Designed Growth
Once you see that the strain is not personal or operational, but structural, the question shifts.
One of the most important distinctions to make is between growth that happens by default and growth that happens by design.
Accidental growth responds to opportunity as it shows up by adding clients, services, and people without fully questioning how those decisions compound over time.
Designed growth starts with a different question.
Not, “How do we get bigger?”
But, “What kind of business are we actually trying to build?”
When you start there, tradeoffs become clearer. Decisions get cleaner. Growth stops feeling reactive and starts feeling intentional.
And most importantly, you stop outsourcing your definition of success.
Why This Moment Matters Now
This conversation matters more now than it would have a decade ago.
Commoditization is accelerating, execution can be replicated quickly, and visibility is easier to buy but credibility is harder to earn.
In this environment, size alone is not a moat.
Clarity is. Reputation is. Fit is.
Agencies that understand who they are and how they create value, compound differently than those trying to outgrow uncertainty through volume.
That’s why the Small But Mighty identity isn’t about staying small.
It’s about staying intentional.
Where This Leads Next
If the first part of this series named the felt experience of growth strain, this post names the structural reason behind it.
The next question naturally follows.
If volume isn’t the engine anymore, what is?
That’s where the next part of the series begins. We will explore what actually drives sustainable agency growth now, and why some agencies experience momentum while others experience strain, even at the same level of success.
🎧 Missed Part 1?
Two $1M Agencies. Very Different Realities
