When a website owner orders promotion, the key question is how exactly the results will be measured and who controls the tools. In practice, access to Google Analytics, Google Search Console, and Google Ads is necessary not only for convenience but also for the smooth management of the project. First, these services provide a reliable picture of performance. Google Analytics displays user behavior and conversions, Search Console displays indexing status and search queries, and Google Ads displays the performance of advertising campaigns. Without access, the owner cannot independently verify that the metrics in the reports are based on actual data. Secondly, access is part of the contractor's transparency and accountability. If a company only provides "pretty reports" without the right to verify the underlying metrics, the owner effectively loses the ability to audit. Access allows for reconciliation of reports, elimination of discrepancies, and quick detection of errors in tracking settings. Third, access is needed for technical management. Setting up goals and events, adjusting tags, adding domains to Search Console, changing the structure of Ads campaigns, and working with landing pages all require account-specific actions. If a contractor is the sole access holder, the project becomes dependent: a change in strategy or employee can slow things down. The issue of risks is particularly important. Without access, the owner cannot track who made what changes: for example, whether they enabled filters, configured exclusions, changed analytics goals, or adjusted advertising strategies. This is critical, as such actions directly impact bottom-line metrics. Furthermore, in a normal collaboration model, the owner must retain control over the assets. Google Analytics, Search Console, and Ads accounts are considered the project's digital assets: they form the data history, audiences, settings, and relationships. Transferring "ownership" of these resources to the contractor is usually impractical—it's more appropriate to grant managed access (for example, a role with the necessary permissions) and define responsibilities in the contract. It's important to note that the specific "mandatory nature" may depend on the contract terms and jurisdiction, but the practical logic remains general. Even if the contract doesn't explicitly stipulate access, the lack of such a provision impairs the verifiability of results, increases dependence on the contractor, and reduces project manageability. If you're choosing a contractor, it's helpful to spell out in advance in the contract or annex the specific access rights granted, the roles used in the services, the timeframes, and what constitutes proof of results (for example, reports linked to data from specific accounts). This helps avoid situations where promotion is just a lip service, while the data remains under the contractor's control.