I think ICO consultants are more like brand ambassadors, because ICO is not in the hands of consultants, or they can't predict the right things. Most of the time, consultants are more focused on marketing purposes.
They are the key of the project, they matters especially on making decisions, they are the one's that can tell whether such action will have an impact, it's their experience that the companies paying for. And we should also know the Advisors background when looking at an ICO.
When a well known bounty manager is saying it then maybe I should pay more attention. I always felt that it was more of a marketing trick than anything else and that they really had little actual involvement in the ICO.
What's surprising is still how many ICOs make huge errors in judgment and are really poorly run despite having the expertise of advisors to call upon. Simple things like changing the terms of the ICO in terms of whitelisting or KYC at the last minute are really poor but so frequent.