In-House V.S. Agency: Which Option Fits Your Marketing Needs?

Blog post excerpt [1-2 lines]. This text is automatically pulled from your existing blog post.

Every company arrives at a point in their growth where they need to evaluate their marketing needs. Typically, it comes down to one question: How can we receive the greatest ROI? To properly answer this, there are many factors to consider first.



The size of the organization is a major piece to consider when deciding between an in-house marketing team or an agency. Small to medium-sized businesses have very different needs & limitations compared to large businesses, and may not have the available resources.

With small to medium-sized businesses, there are often financial constraints. Furthermore, the costs of having an in-house creative department, performance marketing, and project managers can cost far beyond hundreds of thousands of dollars. This can leave smaller & medium businesses handcuffed and unable to improve their supply chain, for example.

Larger businesses typically require a marketing agency to scale their growth and increase performance. The benefit for larger businesses is to have an on-staff creative director relaying direct information from the business to the agency making sure everyone is on the same page.



Organizations with in-house teams have a history of being restrained by organizational silos. This leads to outdated technology, the requirements for technology grow by the day. Within an organizations’ numerous levels of approval are required, this takes quite some time because the in-house agency isn’t the only one reaching out.

Agencies are typically at the forefront of new technology as it is usually their job to provide clients with new ideas on how to evolve. There are also far fewer levels of approval requirements within an agency, meaning technology can be improved to current levels at a much faster pace. Leaving additional time for client work.



In-house teams typically have many employees that come from many different areas of business. This can be used as a benefit with complementary skills leading the charge. One of the downsides of experience on an in-house team is the breadth of learning is limited. Most in-house teams only focus on one type of business, leaving their learning stuck on one business type.



This is one of the main categories that falls almost completely on the in-house team. To achieve the same results of an agency, on average 8-10 full-time employees need to be on staff. The problem with this doesn’t just lay within salary. The cost required to hire these employees is far more expensive due to organizational limitations.

With agencies typically the cost is very minimal in comparison. There is typically a retainer fee for an agreed-upon continual service. This is more beneficial because it indefinitely increases ROI.



In conclusion, one must evaluate their situation completely in order to accurately evaluate what is best for their company. Agencies have a proven track record of improving ROI and in turn, lowering costs. Agencies also typically understand and have a more creative workflow due to their extensive experience in multiple areas, and are more time-efficient.

Benefits to in-house include an increased flow of communication. In larger organizations, or companies that need daily support long-term, it makes more sense to develop a team that works from within. Although agencies can adjust their approach to increase communication levels, many factors

When deciding, evaluate goals, circumstances and finances.

If interested in learning more don’t hesitate to ask your question


Share the Post:

Related Posts