Brands that opt to take their communications completely in-house may see short-term balance-sheet benefits, but the drawbacks are many and long-term.
The communications agency of which I’ve been MD for nearly eight years is something of an exception in its field because we tend to keep clients for a very long time.
True, we do occasionally lose an account. The Covid-19 pandemic was as unfavourable for communications professionals as it was for many other business sectors. But when a client does let us go, or doesn’t renew our contract, it’s often because someone – possibly in their accounts department – has persuaded them that they don’t need both an internal and an external communications team. Get rid of one and save costs, is the reasoning.
This sentiment is ostensibly sensible, but experience has shown me otherwise. I’d argue that combining a hardworking, dedicated internal communications team, with an agency on a retainer, delivers optimal results.
Broad perspective
In-house teams can sometimes become too focused on the company’s internal culture and goals, missing out on external trends, fresh ideas or industry insights. Agencies tend to have broader exposure across industries, bringing a more diverse, creative, and innovative perspective.
Without external viewpoints, there’s a risk that an in-house team may reinforce existing ideas and fail to challenge established assumptions, leading to stagnant or predictable, copy-and-paste communication strategies. External agencies – if they’re doing it right – will also have access to peer networks that offer insights into relevant international trends shaping the communications sector.
Meropa, for example, is a member of the Worldcom Public Relations Group, with partner agencies in 49 countries. Regular peer-to-peer exchanges allow the partners to share information and learnings. A rigorous annual peer review ensures partners maintain standards.
Niche skills and tools
Agencies often have access to a wide range of skills, from crisis communications to influencer marketing, which in-house teams may not possess. Building and retaining such a diverse skills set internally can be costly and time-consuming, and it may not be feasible for a company to maintain the same level of expertise across all areas.
Agencies often invest in the latest communications tools and technologies, data analytics, and media monitoring. In-house teams may struggle to keep up with the latest developments or may lack the budget to acquire tools that enable them to innovate their communications strategies.
During peak times – such as product launches, crises or major campaigns – the in-house team may lack the capacity to handle the increased workload without compromising quality. Access to an external agency means talent is on hand as required.
Outsider insight
In-house teams, because they’re immersed in the company’s culture and goals, may have difficulty thinking outside the box or challenging the status quo. Agencies, on the other hand, bring fresh perspectives and are often tasked with pushing creative boundaries.
Workplace diplomacy
In-house communications teams are often subject to company politics and may find it difficult to push back on unrealistic requests from executives. They may feel pressure to align messaging with internal viewpoints, even when it’s not in the best interest of the broader communication strategy.
An external agency can provide more objective perspectives in situations like crises or reputation management.
Consistent messaging
In-house communications teams may become siloed from other business units, leading to fragmented messaging or lack of collaboration. Agencies, on the other hand, often work across departments, ensuring integrated messaging. They also work with multiple clients, giving them broader insight into industry trends and innovations.
Crisis veterans
Agencies often have experience handling a wide range of complex situations across industries. In-house teams, especially if they haven’t faced many crises, may lack the experience to respond swiftly and effectively. They may also be too emotionally invested, or too close to the situation, to provide the most strategic response.
Creative breakthroughs
In-house teams might be more risk-averse and less likely to take bold steps in their communications strategies, especially if they feel pressure from leadership to play it safe. Agencies, on the other hand, are often hired specifically to take risks and introduce innovative ideas to elevate the brand.
Strong networks
Agencies often have well-established relationships with a range of media outlets, journalists, and influencers. In-house teams may not have the same connections, making it more difficult to generate media attention or manage crises.
An external agency also brings third-party credibility, especially valuable when handling sensitive reputation issues. In-house teams are viewed as internal stakeholders, and their communications may be perceived as lacking impartiality.
While bringing communications in-house can provide more direct control and alignment with company culture, these drawbacks highlight the importance of weighing the decision carefully. Companies should consider whether they have the resources, talent, and capacity to manage communications effectively without external support.
In many cases, a hybrid approach, where in-house teams collaborate with agencies, offers powerful synergies and the best of both worlds.
Yolisa Pasipanodya is managing director at Meropa Communications
