Comments on: Agency Vs. In House

By: MikeTek

MikeTek — Tue, 27 May 2008 20:03:27 +0000

Interesting. I’ve given the in-house thing some thought lately, but I do have some reservations about the bureaucratic issues that role would involve.

I started out turned-on by the agency model, but the way that role is handled in my experience has left a bad taste in my mouth. Similar to the bad name that SEO has outside the “industry,” I’ve come to realize that many so-called “SEO agencies” really are not offering a valuable service. It’s a shame - the knowledge gap is leveraged to dishonest ends.

By: Carlos del Rio

Carlos del Rio — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:30:20 +0000

I have been on both sides and I feel like they are very different experiences.

If you enjoy the “big picture” approach I think you will prefer working in house. But, in house also means honing a different set of tools, because success ends up being defined in a distinctly different way — often coupled to things that are outside your control.

By: MikeTek

MikeTek — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:15:14 +0000

Undoubtedly - but it’s a rough go to convince the decision makers that they need to take on more employees to handle the same amount of clients (income) they have now. The long-term benefits of doing so would be tremendous and would facilitate growth and a loyal customer base…but in my experience the fear of losing profit in the short term outweighs that idea.

One of the reasons I’m thinking lately that being an in-house would be a bit more rewarding. Of course, that green grass would probably look a bit different up close…

By: Carlos del Rio

Carlos del Rio — Tue, 27 May 2008 18:59:43 +0000

Sadly, many agencies fall into the too many clients to be effective range. A good team needs to include the big picture strategist and the in the guts workers — but I definitely think that most agencies have a deficiency of manpower.

I am sure that if you had another set of hand, maybe two, it could make a huge difference in the results you could attain.

By: MikeTek

MikeTek — Tue, 27 May 2008 18:48:31 +0000

Interesting post, Carlos.

Working at an agency, in my experience, has resulted in the involuntary disassociation of the work from any true sense of the benefits. I’ve worked at two agencies: at the first I managed 10-12 accounts, at the second (and current) I manage 50+ accounts. It’s abundantly clear to me at this point that one person in charge of 50+ campaigns is no way to handle SEM effectively. Sure, routine helps get the research/optimization done, but routine doesn’t speak much to the “big picture” strategy these clients really need. Of course, the reason most of these clients came to these agencies is because they didn’t have the budget to hire a full-time marketing agency or department.

Most clients I’ve dealt with have been sold the myth of SEO as a silver bullet for online marketing. In 95% of the cases they need a hell of a lot more than some on-page optimization to see anything close to a positive ROI.

You really do get what you pay for.