Featured · Agencies
Company, contractor or in-house: the make-or-buy decision
Firms shop for a marketing company long before establishing whether a company is what they need. The alternatives — hiring, or assembling two or three contractors — are cheaper for some firms and considerably better, and they never get compared because nobody framed it as a choice.
This is the make-or-buy decision, and it turns on three things: how much work there actually is, how much internal attention exists to direct it, and whether the requirement is steady or lumpy.
What each option really costs
Compare total cost of ownership rather than headline price, because the three models put the cost in different places and only one of them shows up on an invoice.
In-house: salary, employment costs, tools, and the management time of whoever they report to. Cheapest per hour at volume, and it buys availability rather than expertise.
A marketing company: a monthly fee covering a team you could not otherwise afford, plus the coordination cost of briefing people who do not sit with you.
Contractors: an hourly or day rate for genuine specialists, with no coordination provided — somebody at the firm has to be the one holding the pieces together.
The hidden cost in all three is internal: whoever approves work, answers questions and makes decisions. That cost is identical whichever you choose, and it is the one firms omit.
Which is why the honest first question is not what can we afford, but who here will spend two hours a week on this regardless of what we buy.
Volume settles most of it. Below roughly a day of work a week, contractors are usually the efficient answer; above two or three days, a company earns its coordination; and a firm generating enough for a full week is often better hiring.
Lumpiness matters as much as volume. A rebrand, a site build or a merger is a poor reason to hire and an excellent reason to buy in.
The hybrid most firms land on — one internal owner, one company, occasional specialists — is not a compromise. It is the arrangement that matches how legal marketing work actually arrives.
The ways each model goes wrong
Each has a characteristic failure, and recognising yours is usually faster than switching to a different model that will fail its own way.
In-house, hired too junior: a capable person with no authority, reporting to a partner with no time, doing whatever gets asked loudest.
In-house, hired alone: one generalist expected to write, design, build, advertise and report, and outperformed by any of those done properly.
A company, briefed vaguely: a retainer producing steady output that nobody at the firm can connect to a result.
A company, used as a supplier: work approved slowly, questions unanswered, and a third of the retainer never delivered because it was blocked.
Contractors, unmanaged: three specialists each doing their part well while nothing joins up, which is the failure firms mistake for the contractors being poor.
And all three, judged too early: any of these models can look like a failure at month four.
Deciding, and revisiting
This is a decision to make explicitly and then revisit annually, because the right answer changes as a firm grows.
Estimate the actual weekly hours of work the plan implies, honestly, rather than the hours you would like to spend.
Identify who internally will own it and how much time they genuinely have. If the answer is nobody, fix that before buying anything.
Separate the steady work from the one-off projects, and consider buying the projects while resourcing the steady work differently.
Price all three models for the same scope, including the internal cost, before comparing.
Start with the lightest option that could work. Moving up from contractors to a company is easy; unwinding a hire is not.
Write down what would make you change models, so the review has a criterion rather than a mood.
Revisit annually, and expect to move. Most firms pass through contractors, then a company, then a hybrid as they grow.
And do not let the decision be made by whoever happened to send a convincing proposal that quarter.
The best law firm marketing companies are genuinely worth their fee for firms with enough steady work to fill one and enough internal attention to direct it. For firms without either, the same money buys considerably more elsewhere.
FAQs
Should a law firm hire in-house or use a marketing company?
It turns on volume, internal attention and how lumpy the work is. Below about a day a week, contractors are usually most efficient; above two or three days, a company earns its coordination; a full week of steady work often justifies hiring.
What do firms forget when comparing costs?
The internal cost. Somebody has to approve work, answer questions and make decisions, and that time is identical whichever model you choose. Comparing an agency fee against a salary while omitting it makes every comparison wrong in the same direction.
When are contractors better than a company?
When the volume is low, the requirement is specific, and somebody at the firm can hold the pieces together. Contractors supply expertise without coordination — if nobody internally is doing the joining up, the work will not join up.
Is a hybrid arrangement a compromise?
No. One internal owner, one company and occasional specialists is the arrangement that best matches how legal marketing work actually arrives — some steady, some lumpy, some needing deep expertise for a fortnight.
How often should we revisit the decision?
Annually, against criteria written down in advance. Most firms move through contractors, then a company, then a hybrid as they grow, and the failure is drifting rather than choosing.
End Note
Most firms arrive at a marketing company because one got in touch at the right moment, not because the alternatives were priced. That is an expensive way to make a decision you will live with for years.
Estimate the hours, name the internal owner, price all three models against the same scope, and start with the lightest thing that could work. Then review it once a year on criteria you wrote down in advance.
Key Takeaways
Decide whether you need a company before deciding which one.
Compare total cost of ownership — the internal cost is identical in all three.
Volume settles it: contractors under a day a week, a company above two or three.
Buy the lumpy projects; resource the steady work differently.
Start with the lightest option — moving up is easy, unwinding a hire is not.
