Brands taking communications entirely in-house may see short-term financial benefits, but long-term drawbacks are significant. The communications agency I have led for almost eight years is unusual in retaining clients for extended periods. Occasionally, we lose an account.
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted communications professionals as it did many other sectors.
When clients do not renew contracts, it is often because someone, often in accounting, suggests cutting either internal or external teams. The rationale is cost-saving by eliminating one team. While this appears logical, experience proves otherwise. Combining a committed in-house communications team with an external agency on retainer delivers optimal outcomes.
Broad perspective
In-house teams often focus heavily on company culture and goals, overlooking external trends or industry insights. Agencies, with broader exposure across industries, bring diverse and innovative perspectives.
Without external input, in-house teams risk reinforcing existing ideas and failing to challenge assumptions. This leads to stagnant or predictable communication strategies. Agencies bring access to peer networks and international trends.
For example, we partner with agencies in 49 countries. Peer-to-peer exchanges and annual reviews ensure partners maintain high standards.
Niche skills and tools
Agencies provide specialised skills, from crisis communications to influencer marketing, often unavailable in-house. Building and retaining such diverse expertise internally is costly and challenging.
Agencies also invest in cutting-edge tools like data analytics and media monitoring. In-house teams may lack the budget or resources to keep up with technological advancements.
During peak times like product launches or crises, in-house teams may struggle with increased workloads. External agencies can provide additional talent when needed.
Outsider insight
In-house teams, deeply immersed in company culture, may struggle to think outside the box or challenge norms. Agencies, by contrast, bring fresh perspectives and push creative boundaries.
Workplace diplomacy
In-house teams often face company politics and may find it hard to reject unrealistic executive requests. Agencies offer objective perspectives, especially in crisis or reputation management situations.
Consistent messaging
In-house teams may work in silos, leading to fragmented messaging. Agencies collaborate across departments and clients, ensuring integrated and consistent communication strategies.
Crisis veterans
Agencies, with experience across industries, handle crises effectively. In-house teams may lack crisis experience and struggle with emotional investment, impacting strategic decision-making.
Creative breakthroughs
In-house teams may adopt risk-averse strategies due to leadership pressure. Agencies, hired to innovate, introduce bold ideas to enhance brand communication.
Strong networks
Agencies maintain relationships with media outlets, journalists, and influencers, which in-house teams may lack. This strengthens media coverage and crisis management efforts. External agencies also add third-party credibility, especially during reputation-sensitive situations. In-house teams, as internal stakeholders, may be perceived as less impartial.
In conclusion
When considering in-house versus agency communications, it is important to weigh the benefits of control and cultural alignment provided by in-house teams against the innovative perspectives and expertise offered by agencies. Companies should carefully evaluate their resources, talent, and capacity to manage communications effectively without external support.
A hybrid approach, blending in-house and agency teams, can create synergies that deliver the best of both worlds – combining the depth of internal understanding with the breadth of external expertise.
Yolisa Pasipanodya | Managing Director | Meropa Communications | mail me |
