Campaign Production Considerations

This approach is best suited to companies that have a predictable amount of work and the budget to maintain the team even if demand fluctuates. As team building is a long-term effort, ensure that there are opportunities for growth to retain the talent you acquire. If the above is no issue, having an in-house production team is the most cost-efficient long-term solution.

Below we have summed up the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.

Benefits:

• Dedicated resources within company structures, utilizing IT-approved equipment, meaning no hassles with systems access and communications
• Direct control over personnel choices (who to hire, etc.)
• Internal “Chain of command”
• Usually, lower cost per resource when comparing FTEs to similar capacity provided by an external agency
• No dependencies on third parties

Risks:

• As the team gets entrenched in a single, highly repetitive process, there’s a risk of becoming reluctant to doing things another way – even if the method is objectively better – and losing sight of whether the current approach makes sense in the bigger picture
• Campaign production is a repetitive, high-pressure job with little influence on decision making within the enterprise environment, leading to burnout and attrition. After 18 – 24 months, each employee should be given an opportunity
  to transition to a different role to reduce early attrition. Does your organization have suitable career paths to offer
  to retain talent beyond the production role (e.g. in Marketing Automation, Operations or broader team)? Additional headcount is also needed to account for these training and documentation responsibilities. If your HR department
  has data about the early attrition cost, you may want to take that number into account while making the decision
• The responsibility to manage the team, career progression, burnout rate, onboarding and training up resources requires extensive involvement to keep the stability of the production “engine”. This effort is one of the hidden costs
  of this approach
• When experienced employees leave, the cost of replacing them is a third of their annual earnings
  (per The Society for Human Resource Management) and it still doesn’t prevent knowledge loss
• No flexibility in adding short-term team members when the workload exceeds the capacity of the team

Using an external agency can be hugely beneficial in situations where the workload is variable or unpredictable, as they
can provide a larger team of resources with a wide skillset to ensure the work is delivered on time. This is particularly
useful when the work may require multiple resources with different skills, and if your company doesn’t need said resources
full-time.

Benefits:

• No headaches over personnel management – burnout, career and resource planning become agency responsibilities
• Getting additional budget approvals is usually easier than headcount extension
• The end-to-end production process is handled by the agency, freeing up in-house marketing personnel to focus
  on strategic initiatives
• Access to broader perspective as agencies support multiple clients – and have the knowledge “on tap”
• Agency can prepare processes for new businesses and those in transition, which can later be useful while transferring to a hybrid or fully in-house approach

Risks:

• Usually more expensive than internal headcount (when comparing only an employee’s salary vs the agency cost; however, bear in mind that an employee cost is more than just their salary)
• Dependency on an external agency – requires a trustworthy partner, as when the external team owns the expertise
  and process knowledge, switching becomes a long-lasting, heavy effort – and expensive – exercise, without
  a guarantee that knowledge will be transferred efficiently

This is the most flexible approach as it allows the workload to be scaled up as and when required and provides access
to a diverse and highly specialised skill set on demand, whilst retaining the knowledge and core staff in house.
If the workload in your company is unpredictable, using an agency in addition to your own team provides the best
cost-efficiency balance.

Benefits:

All the benefits of both in-house and external agency approaches combined

An in-house team is aware and in control of the processes while having access to additional resources on demand

Easier to plan career paths for FTEs

Lower burn-out rate due to less workload (and pressure) on the internal team, especially at the busiest times of the year

If a member of staff leaves, your team's overall performance is not compromised because your agency can take over their work while the new employees are being trained.

More balanced cost of resources

Knowledge sharing between theagency and in-house team as they work together on projects, reducing loss ofknowledge Slightly more expensive than an in-house team alone (but stillcheaper than fully outsourcing to an agency)

The bottomline

Considering the benefits andrisks of agency and in-house approaches, as well as the experiences gainedthrough supporting our customers, I believe a balanced hybrid approach offersthe best of both worlds. This involves building a lean in-house team that ownsprocesses and utilizing an external agency to provide a scalable workforce todrive the production efforts efficiently.

Regardless of the approach you choose to move forward with, ensure that your team:

1. Documents and maintains the campaign production process up to date:

·   Brief Requirements

·        SLAs

·        Delivery stages and steps

·        Actions ownership – a team RACI matrix for the process

2. Agrees on KPIs – and how they will be tracked/reported against overall marketing targets.

Looking for advice in choosing the right approach for your company or facing any other marketing operations challenges? Book a free consultation with us and see how we can help!

‍