What I’ve learned placing 100+ finance candidates into creative agencies

After the first ten or so finance hires into creative agencies, I thought I’d seen most scenarios. After a hundred plus, you start to see clear patterns you can’t unsee. There are patterns in who thrives, who struggles, and where agencies quietly trip themselves up.

I spend most of my time at Harmonic helping creative agencies build out their finance teams from the first Finance Manager through to FDs and CFOs. Sitting between agency leaders, finance professionals and candidates gives you a vantage point you don’t get from one side alone.

This isn’t a theoretical guide to “strategic finance”. It’s what I’ve actually seen work on the ground in agencies where margins are tight, clients are demanding, and the pace never really lets up. And hopefully, these insights will give some practical shortcuts for agencies hiring or reshaping their finance teams.

What the best candidates have in common

The strongest people I’ve placed into creative agencies have a very clear through-line: they think beyond the numbers; they’re commercially minded in a real, day-to-day way; they can look at a client, a scope and a forecast and immediately see where profit is going to leak, and what to do about it.

They’re also good communicators. Not just “can present a deck” good, but genuinely comfortable sitting with Account Directors, creatives and SLT and saying, “This doesn’t add up” in a way people can hear. They are able to translate finance into language the rest of the agency can act on.

They’re comfortable with ambiguity, when scopes move, timelines change, or a client suddenly wants three extra routes on the same fee. The best finance hires don’t shut down when that happens. They’re used to shifting their priorities and still finding a way to keep the numbers accurate and the margin protected.

And crucially, they’re proactive. They don’t wait for someone to ask for a report. They’ll call out scope creep, question discounting, push for better phasing, and make sure people understand the financial impact of “just one more round”. But underpinning all of this, they also understand how agencies actually make money. They know the difference between project work and retainers, utilisation, recoverability, and revenue recognition.

The traits agencies still underestimate

There are a few traits that consistently make the difference, but they don’t always make it onto job specs. Soft skills are at the top of that list. Diplomacy, influence, and clarity of communication are all things that allow finance teams to challenge without alienating. And in a creative environment, that’s gold.

Agencies also tend to underplay their project profitability and forecasting experience. Everyone says they want “commercial” finance, but not everyone screens for people who’ve actually sat in project reviews, interrogated job-level profitability, and worked with delivery teams to fix it. The ones who have done that tend to hit the ground much faster.

Another underused lever is genuine partnership with delivery and client teams. Too many roles are set up to report upwards to the MD, the FD, or the board only. But high-impact finance hires also build strong working relationships with producers, project managers, and client services. Rather than just sending them a spreadsheet once a month, they sit with teams to troubleshoot and help them make better decisions.

Finally, tech adaptability matters more than people think. Agencies increasingly run on a stack of modern finance and project tools. Candidates who are confident getting the best out of those systems and improving how they’re used free up a lot of time and reduce the “we don’t trust the data” noise that can creep in when tools are badly implemented.

Patterns that predict a bad fit

There are also some consistent warning signs when a candidate is unlikely to thrive in an agency environment. One is someone who’s too corporate or rigid in their working style. If they need layers of approvals, fixed monthly cycles, and a strict hierarchy to function, they’re usually going to find creative agencies frustrating.

Another is a heavy reliance on structure. Agencies do need process, but they’re rarely as tightly structured as, say, large corporates or listed businesses. If someone needs a perfectly mapped RACI and crystal-clear responsibilities on day one to feel comfortable, that’s a mismatch with the reality of many agencies.

A lack of genuine commercial curiosity is also a red flag. If a candidate lights up talking about technical accounting, but seems bored by conversations around clients, propositions, and pricing, they’re likely to default to “back office” behaviour. But most agencies actually need the opposite.

Being uncomfortable pushing back on client teams is another pattern I see in hires that don’t stick. In almost every agency, there will be moments where finance needs to say, “We can’t do that for this fee,” or “We need to re-scope.” If someone can’t see themselves doing that, they’ll either burn out or end up sidelined.

Lastly, anyone who expects slow, predictable workloads is going to have a shock. Agency life comes in waves. Tuesday might be quiet, followed by a frantic Thursday. The month-end is rarely the only crunch point. People who want a fully even workload across the month often feel permanently knocked off balance working in agencies.

Where agencies go wrong when hiring finance

Agencies themselves also fall into some very familiar traps when they’re hiring finance roles. The most common is hiring purely on technical skill. “They’re a great accountant” becomes the whole brief, and the key behavioural and commercial aspects get bolted on as an afterthought.

Another pain point is job specs that don’t reflect reality. I often see roles advertised as purely strategic when, in truth, there’s still a heavy amount of hands-on work and process-building required. When the reality doesn’t match the pitch, you get quick disengagement or quick turnover.

Many agencies also bring finance in too late. The classic moment is “we need an FD now” when revenue has grown, margins are under pressure, and their reporting is behind. The FD then spends their first year firefighting instead of building, where a phased approach to finance leadership often works better.

Misunderstanding salary levels is another recurring issue. Agencies sometimes want a unicorn – someone who can own the board pack, clean up historic issues, build a team, and do day-to-day reporting, all on a mid-level salary. But the market simply doesn’t support that, so getting clear on budget vs expectations saves a lot of time.

And finally, finance is still too often left out of pitches, pricing, and scoping until very late. By the time the numbers reach finance, the deal is done and expectations are set. Bringing finance in at the start changes the conversation from “Can we make this work?” to “How do we scope and price this properly?”

What high-performing agencies do differently

On the flip side, there are some clear habits I see in agencies where finance really works. The first is that finance is involved in pricing from day one. They’re in pitch meetings, helping shape fee structures and assumptions before they go near a client. That alone protects margin and sanity. These agencies also give finance a real voice in operational decisions. They’re not seen as the “department of no” and instead they’re invited into discussions about resourcing models, hiring, vendor choices, and which clients to prioritise.

Onboarding is another big differentiator. High-performing agencies don’t just hand over a laptop and some logins. They spend time explaining how they make money, how the teams work, what’s expected in the first 30–60–90 days and where the pitfalls are. They also use data consistently, which doesn’t necessarily mean complex dashboards or AI. It means choosing a sensible set of metrics, for example utilisation, project profit, client-level margin, or forecast accuracy, and sticking with them long enough for people to trust and act on them.

Finally, they build their finance teams progressively. Instead of jumping straight to “we need an FD”, they think through stages. Maybe they need to hire a strong Finance Manager first, then a Financial Controller, then an FD as the complexity increases. That sequencing means each hire is set up for success, rather than spread impossibly thin.

What candidates are really looking for

From the candidate side, there are clear themes about what makes an agency attractive. Most aren’t just chasing the highest salary. They want a genuine seat at the table, to know their input will be listened to and that they’ll be involved in decisions, not just asked to “run the numbers”.

They pay close attention to cultural signals. How do leadership talk about finance? Is it “the team that stops us doing fun things,” or “the team that helps us do more of the right things”? Do people seem overworked and firefighting, or is there at least an attempt at sustainable ways of working? Candidates are quick to spot red flags. So a complete lack of process, chaotic reporting, unclear ownership for key tasks, and frequent leadership churn all raise questions about company stability. None of these are deal-breakers if you’re honest about them, but glossing over them rarely ends well.

The agencies that attract senior finance talent are the ones that can articulate a clear story about where the business is going, what they actually want finance to help with, and how that person will be supported. “We need someone to sort everything out” is not a compelling pitch. “Here’s our plan, and here’s the part you’ll own” is.

The single biggest insight

If I had to boil all of this down to one learning from those 100+ placements, it would be this: communication beats technical brilliance in creative agencies.

The best hires are not usually the most technically impressive accountants on paper, but they are the ones who can influence. They can sit with a Creative Director and explain why a change in scope matters. They can talk to a client services lead about pipeline without jargon. They can present to the board in a way that prompts action, not just nodding. Their technical skills are solid, but that’s the foundation rather than the differentiator.

Above all, they fit the culture. They understand the balance between creativity and commerciality and they genuinely respect both. When that alignment is there, CVs matter less than you’d think. When it isn’t, even the most impressive background can’t compensate.

Where agencies go from here

Hiring finance well is one of the biggest profit levers agencies have, and it’s one that’s still underused. Getting this right saves you time, reduces churn, and creates a calmer, more predictable growth pattern. Getting it wrong is expensive, both financially and culturally.

If you recognise some of the patterns I’ve described – the good or the bad – and you’re thinking about how to structure or grow your finance team, it’s worth taking a step back before you hire. Be honest about what you need now, what you’ll need next and the kind of person who will actually thrive in your environment.

This is exactly the work I do day to day. If you’d like a sounding board on your next finance hire or how to structure your team for where your agency is heading, get in touch with me today at [email protected].