Partnership Models, ESS x Stephen Brooks

Created: 2026-05-03, refreshed 2026-05-12 Status: Draft for Stephen Brooks review Companion documents: v2 methodology, Q3 2026 deployment plan Authors: Nicolás Borja, with Sergio Uzaheta

Why three models, not one

Stephen operates solo, caps his hours at 60 per week, and protects his bandwidth by extending contracts rather than rushing delivery. The right partnership shape depends on which client we are addressing and how much of his calendar he wants to commit. We bring three structures so he picks the one that matches the deal in front of him, and we agree to revisit the structure quarterly as the relationship matures.

Model 1, Referral / finder's fee

Structure

Stephen sources the lead and makes the introduction. ESS owns the relationship from first call onward, scopes and contracts independently, delivers the work, and pays Stephen a referral fee on closed revenue.

What Stephen gets

A revenue line that requires zero ongoing operational involvement after the introduction. He keeps full focus on his existing book and his strategy work.

What ESS gets

Full client relationship, full margin after the referral fee, full discretion on scope and pricing. Direct line to compound case studies and testimonials.

Pricing reference

• 12% of net collected revenue from the referred client during the first 12 months of engagement.
• Negotiable to 15% if Stephen delivers a written introduction with strategic context (not just a calendar invite).
• Capped at $25,000 USD per referred client to prevent runaway exposure on long retainers.
• Paid quarterly, 30 days after end-of-quarter close.

When this fits best

• Stephen's bandwidth is full.
• The client is not a fit for his consulting work but needs marketing execution.
• Stephen wants to test the relationship with ESS without committing his calendar.
• We want a low-friction first deal that lets us prove delivery.

Risks to manage

• Stephen disengages too early and the lead never converts because the client expected him to be involved. Mitigation: agree upfront on a single warm-handoff call where Stephen attends, then a clean handoff.
• Referral fee accounting drifts and creates trust friction. Mitigation: monthly transparent revenue ledger shared with Stephen, even when no payment is due.

Model 2, Delivery partner / co-sold

Structure

Stephen sells strategy, alignment, and goal-setting on his standard retainer plus hourly rate. ESS sells the execution layer (marketing, content production, paid media, lifecycle, distribution operations, AI workflows) on a separate retainer plus pass-through media. Same client, two contracts, one integrated outcome. Stephen and ESS coordinate weekly during active engagements.

What Stephen gets

He keeps his strategy rate untouched and adds an execution arm that lets him propose larger engagements without expanding his calendar. He stays the trusted advisor while ESS becomes the team behind the work.

What ESS gets

A retainer line tied to a strategy-led engagement, plus the margin on execution work and any media buying. Visibility into a class of clients ESS could not access alone (streaming, FAST TV, CTV operators in LatAm). Compound learnings into the productized diagnostic.

Pricing reference

• ESS execution retainer: $4,500 to $12,000 USD per month per client, scoped by engagement.
• Paid media pass-through: cost plus 12 to 15% management margin.
• Content production day rate: $1,500 USD per production day for Sergio's audiovisual stack.
• Setup fees for new client onboarding: $5,000 to $15,000 USD depending on scope (FAST channel architecture, AI pipeline build, multilingual setup).
• Stephen sets his own pricing on his side. No revenue split between Stephen and ESS on this model. Each operator bills the client directly for their layer.

When this fits best

• Stephen is already in a client and wants to expand scope without doing more work himself.
• The client has a defined need that maps to ESS capabilities (FAST channel launch, content repurposing, marketing instrumentation, multilingual content factory).
• Both parties want a long-term cadence, not a one-off transaction.
• Alo Yoga scope (the example we discussed) likely fits this model.

Risks to manage

• Client perceives confusion about who owns what. Mitigation: single joint kickoff document signed by Stephen, ESS, and the client, defining who delivers what and who is the day-to-day point of contact for which workstream.
• Stephen's strategy work and ESS's execution work fall out of sync. Mitigation: standing 30-minute weekly sync between Stephen and Nico for the duration of any active engagement.
• Pricing arbitrage attempts by the client (asking ESS to deliver Stephen's strategy, or asking Stephen to manage ESS's deliverables). Mitigation: stay in lane, refer the request back across.

Model 3, Co-built productized offer

Structure

Stephen and ESS co-build a productized service line targeting his client base. Working name: "Streaming and FAST Health Practice." A standardized engagement with fixed deliverables, fixed pricing, and a defined sales motion. Stephen owns the brand-front of the offer and the sales cycle. ESS hosts and operates the diagnostic engine, content pipeline, and marketing execution. Revenue share negotiated per offer tier.

What Stephen gets

A scaled, repeatable revenue line that does not require his calendar to scale linearly. Positioning shift from solo strategist to head of a strategy-and-execution practice. New brand asset he can pitch alongside his existing identities.

What ESS gets

A direct revenue share on a productized offer aimed at a client base ESS has limited access to alone. Recurring engagements at known scope. Brand association with Stephen's reputation in streaming and FAST.

Pricing reference

Three tiers of the productized offer:

• Tier 1, Diagnostic. $2,500 USD flat, delivered in 14 days. Includes the Streaming Health Diagnostic plus a 60-minute alignment call and a written 90-day roadmap. Revenue split: 50/50 after cost.
• Tier 2, 90-Day Implementation. $35,000 to $65,000 USD scoped per client, delivered over 90 days. Includes everything in Tier 1 plus marketing instrumentation, content factory setup, and multilingual pipeline if applicable. Revenue split: 60 ESS / 40 Stephen baseline. (See note below on the investment-for-stake conversation that may shift this band.)
• Tier 3, Continuous Practice. $12,000 to $25,000 USD per month retainer after Tier 2, ongoing optimization and reporting. Revenue split: 65 ESS / 35 Stephen baseline.

When this fits best

• Stephen wants to scale beyond solo without hiring or starting an agency.
• The first delivery partner engagement (Model 2) has run successfully and we have a case study.
• Both parties have aligned on positioning and language for the practice.
• Six to twelve months into the relationship, not at the start.

Risks to manage

• Brand confusion between Stephen's solo identity, ESS, and the joint practice. Mitigation: pick one front-facing brand for the practice (likely a co-brand) and lock the visual and messaging system before launch.
• IP ownership disputes if either party leaves. Mitigation: written IP allocation agreement before any joint marketing launches. ESS owns the diagnostic engine, scoring algorithm, and pipeline tooling. Stephen owns his strategic frameworks and client relationships. Joint ownership of the productized offer's brand and marketing assets, with predefined exit clauses.
• Client poaching during transition. Mitigation: non-solicit clause covering the duration of the partnership plus 12 months.

Flexibility going forward

These three models are starting points, not boundaries. Each client opens its own negotiation, and the right shape depends on the relationship, the scope, and the bandwidth on either side. The same flexibility extends to any future venture that Stephen, ESS, or Sergio brings to the table. We would rather build the structure that fits the specific opportunity than force-fit one of the three models above.