Is in-house marketing support really better? Mythbusting the agency versus in-house debate

As covered in our recent podcast, choosing between an in-house team and an external PR and marketing agency is one of the most common – and misunderstood – decisions businesses face.

Costs, speed, risk and strategic value are often key discussion points, but are rarely supported with real data behind them. To help businesses have an informed understanding of this topic, we’re cutting though common assumptions and answering the biggest questions companies ask when weighing up internal hires versus agency support.

Should I hire for an internal role since agency work is dying?

Agency work isn’t dying – in fact, 90% of clients using agencies actually expect their use of them to stay the same or even increase over the next three years!

Instead of seeing it as dying, businesses need to understand that the nature of PR and marketing agencies is evolving. Traditional media-only agencies may be shrinking as AI reshapes the landscape, but companies like Proactive PR are increasingly blending data, narrative, Generative Engine Optimisation (GEO), content and earned media together to solve modern visibility problems across the board. The agencies putting in this work aren’t dying – they are thriving in this new landscape.

Are agencies more expensive than hiring in-house?

The answer is no – a typical in-house marketing and PR team costs a business approximately £255-375k once salaries, national insurance, pensions, tools, services and overheads are factored in.

On the other hand, a senior UK agency – depending on where they’re based as London agencies are typically pricier – costs £40-100k based on equivalent output. This makes agencies not only cheaper, but also far more resource‑efficient for the same level of work.

Do in-house teams deliver meaningful PR and marketing output quicker?

In fact it’s the opposite. Agencies usually deliver output at a much faster pace than their in-house counterparts, reaching peak productivity in 2 to 4 weeks.

However, in-house hires can often take between 2-3 months (if it’s just a single hire) or even 3-6 months (if it’s a team) to ramp up to the same levels. This speed advantage means agencies start delivering meaningful results long before an internal team is fully operational.

Do agencies create more risk than in-house teams?

It’s reasonable to say there’s an element of risk with both, especially if there are staff departures. Yet there is a key difference: losing one in-house team member may result in losing an entire marketing channel, but losing an equivalent agency lead actually reduces any continuity risks as they work in a multi-person team.

This means they are more easily replaceable internally. Additionally, agencies maintain consistent output during this period because their processes, tooling and cross-trained employees ensure work continues smoothly regardless of personnel changes.

Do in-house teams understand my company better than agencies?

They do in the sense that they’re closer to the coal face and likely have a closer understanding of the day-to-day actions within the business. However, agencies often outperform in-house teams when it comes to strategic clarity.

Analyst firms like McKinsey argue that organisations need external partners not just for execution, but because they bring capabilities, benchmarks and perspectives that internal teams lack. In these instances, that distance often proves to be a benefit when it comes to delivering optimal communications.

So which is better?

Why not both together? In‑house specialists bring day‑to‑day proximity and operational insight, while external partners add the extra capacity, specialist skills and strategic perspective that internal teams often can’t cover alone. When the right agency integrates around an internal function, it amplifies its impact to create a combined marketing and communications engine that’s far stronger than either side working independently.

Proactive PR has deep experience in exactly this kind of partnership. We can embed seamlessly around in‑house teams, strengthening their output and giving them the strategic firepower, sector expertise and AI‑driven insight they need to outperform competitors. It’s this blend of collaboration, capability and clarity that enables our clients to run marketing and communications functions that consistently punch above their weight.