In-House vs. Agency: An Honest (If Biased) Assessment

Before I say anything else, I'll acknowledge the obvious: I run a marketing agency. That said, if I didn't believe in the value agencies provide, I'd find a job as a VP of Marketing somewhere and go that route.

But I do believe in them. Here's why.

The Case for Agencies

Cost efficiency that surprises people. If you've never calculated what you actually spend per hour on an in-house resource, don't do it now. Salary, benefits, paid time off, equipment, management overhead, training, the time spent discussing last night's game around the coffee machine—it adds up to more than you think.

Agencies charge what seems like a significant hourly rate. But you're paying only for productive time, with no overhead, no benefits, no equipment costs. For most businesses, the math favors agencies more than they expect.

The pivot, perfected. Ask an in-house team member to jump between projects six times in a day and you get resentment, even if it's well-disguised. You also get ramp-up time with each switch.

At agencies, pivoting is second nature. It's a skill we practice daily. We can come up to full productivity in minutes, not hours.

The best tools, already in place. Quality marketing requires quality tools—analytics platforms, design software, project management systems, marketing automation. An agency has already invested in these tools and learned how to use them effectively. You get the benefit without the capital expenditure or learning curve.

Breadth of experience. An in-house marketer sees one company, one industry, one set of challenges. Agency teams work across multiple clients, multiple industries, multiple problems. That breadth translates into better pattern recognition and more creative solutions.

Scalability. Need to ramp up for a product launch? Scale back after a big push? With an agency, you adjust your engagement. With in-house staff, you're either overstaffed or understaffed most of the time.

Fresh perspective. It's hard to see your own blind spots. An outside team brings objectivity that's difficult to maintain when you're immersed in your company every day.

The Case for In-House

Agencies aren't always the answer. Here's when in-house makes more sense:

Deep institutional knowledge. Some marketing requires understanding nuances that take years to absorb. If your competitive advantage depends on expertise that can't be quickly transferred, in-house may be necessary.

Constant availability. If you need someone in every meeting, available for every quick question, embedded in your daily operations—that's an employee, not an agency.

Volume work. At some point, the volume of ongoing work justifies dedicated staff. If you need 40+ hours per week of marketing execution indefinitely, the math may shift toward in-house.

Cultural embodiment. Sometimes you need someone who lives and breathes your brand every day, who's building their career around your company's success.

The Hybrid Model

The smartest companies often use both. In-house resources for work that requires constant presence and deep institutional knowledge. Agency partners for specialized expertise, surge capacity, and fresh perspectives.

The key is matching the resource to the need—not defaulting to one model for everything.

Questions to Ask Yourself

Before deciding, consider:

• What specific capabilities do you need?
• How much volume of work, consistently?
• How specialized is the expertise required?
• How important is deep institutional knowledge vs. broad market perspective?
• What's your realistic budget, including all costs?

There's no universally right answer. But there is a right answer for your specific situation.