Woolley Marketing: To in-house or not to in-house, is that the only question?

Having been involved in optimising or dismantling as many in-house agencies as I have helped to create, I am always amused at the binary way agency in-housing is discussed. Most discussions are presented as a zero-sum game, where every in-house agency means an agency loses another client. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. 

But rather than take my word for it or discuss this in general terms, let’s put some data here to really understand the state of the industry on the issue of in-housing. And what better source than the industry body that purports to represent 90% of the global ad spend or almost $US900 billion annually – the World Federation of Advertisers?

The WFA published a report last September. In the press release promoting the report, it stated that of the 53 advertisers who responded to a survey on the topic, 57% (30 advertisers) reported having in-house agencies. 82% (43.5 advertisers) reported that workloads had increased in the past year. Of the 30 advertisers with in-house agencies, 94% (28 advertisers) had creative capabilities for digital content and around half (14 advertisers) had in-house planning and buying. 74% (22 advertisers) had set up their in-house agency in the last five years as digital opportunities have driven growth. And why not? When you read about in-housing, the benefits including control, speed, collaboration and cost are spelt out.