How In-House Agencies Went from ‘Cheaper, Faster’ to Leading Creative Ambitions

When in-house agencies first emerged, they had one job: to save money. These were the “service departments” tasked with delivering assets quickly and at lower rates. A retailer might have relied on them for catalogues or point-of-sale, while a broadcaster used them for promos. These teams were doers, not leaders—a cost-efficient production arm rather than a driver of strategy.

But that’s no longer the whole story.

We tackled this topic in a recent Bold Session with Patrick Burgoyne, co-founder of the In-House Agency Leaders Club, who has watched in-house teams evolve into something far more ambitious. “A lot of in-house teams were set up originally to save money and drive efficiency,” he explains, “but as those teams have matured … they’ve become more ambitious for the work and the impact they could have.”

That evolution sets the stage for why in-house agencies exist today: not to produce faster and cheaper, but to act as trusted partners who bring brand knowledge and strategic insight to the table.

Two forces have always been at the heart of in-housing: cost and speed. External agencies often come with constraints around retainers or project limits, while an in-house setup gives brands the flexibility to handle more requests without additional overhead. As Patrick explains, this efficiency is what made in-house such an attractive option in the first place. But today, the argument extends beyond volume. In-house teams also hold something agencies can never fully replicate: brand knowledge. That knowledge (of products, processes, regulations, and culture) cannot be quickly transferred to an outside partner, and it is now seen as one of the strongest reasons for investing in in-house capability.

The prevalence of in-housing also varies by industry. According to Patrick, it is most common in highly regulated sectors such as insurance, finance, and healthcare, where the stakes are high and the rules are complex. “When you’re making communications in those areas, there are so many things you have to know—what you can say, what you cannot, and how it connects back to the brand,” he says. In such contexts, in-house teams provide not just efficiency, but also essential expertise that safeguards both compliance and credibility.

Today’s in-house agencies are no longer content with being the back-office producers of marketing assets. Their ambition is to be recognised as strategic partners, trusted problem-solvers who understand the business inside out. As Patrick puts it, the shift is “going from being seen as a service department to being seen as a strategic partner of the business. That’s the path a lot of them are on.”

In-house agencies have something external agencies can’t easily replicate: deep brand knowledge and internal relationships. They carry an everyday understanding of the culture, regulations, and goals of the organisation. That closeness enables them to respond faster, align more closely with business objectives, and anticipate needs in a way outsiders rarely can.

Still, Patrick stresses that there’s no single template for in-housing: “Everybody does in-housing differently. There are overall patterns and trends, but the in-house team for each business is going to be different because it’s responding to the needs of that business.”

In other words, leaders shouldn’t be looking for a universal playbook or a single roadmap to follow. Instead, they should treat other in-house models as benchmarks, not blueprints. The size of the team, the services it offers, and the degree to which it partners with external agencies will always depend on the business’s sector, legacy, and ambitions.

For some, the right approach might be a lean production studio focused on efficiency. For others, it’s building a full-service agency with strategists and conceptual creatives at the helm. The key is to design a model that solves your company’s problems, while keeping an eye on industry patterns to avoid reinventing the wheel.

The old way of thinking was simple: in-house meant cheaper and faster. And in many places, that remains true. But for teams that have built credibility over time, the ceiling has lifted dramatically.

As in-house groups grew their knowledge and earned trust, they began asking bigger questions: Why don’t we take on more of this work? Why not originate ideas? Why not lead campaigns rather than just produce them?

Patrick points to findings from their 2023 benchmarking survey: “Only 15% thought of themselves as being a lead agency. But 47% said they would be a lead agency in the future.” In other words, nearly half of in-house agency leaders and senior team members aspire to run campaigns end-to-end.

The evolution of in-house agencies doesn’t sideline external agencies. On the contrary, they remain crucial partners. Companies still turn to them for specialist expertise, fresh perspective, and high-end creative talent. In-house leaders themselves often acknowledge the risk of becoming too “institutionalised” without outside input.

What has changed is the nature of the relationship. “It’s no longer the case of external agencies coming in saying ‘we know best, you just execute,’” Patrick says. “Brands are very mindful now that these partners need to be in a collaborative, mutually respectful relationship where both have strengths.”

That collaboration is now formalised. Requests for proposals regularly include the question: How will you work with our in-house agency?—a scenario that would have been unheard of 20 years ago. As Patrick notes, the balance of power has shifted: it is no longer about dominance, but about clarity of roles and collaboration as equals.

This new reality also has an impact on external agencies. While exact numbers on reduced vendor rosters or budgets vary by brand, Patrick observes a noticeable shift in dynamics. Some companies now use in-house teams as a benchmark, comparing costs and efficiencies directly. “A lot of people do that kind of benchmarking thing to say, ‘We put a value on our time, and if an external agency had done this project, it would’ve cost 30% more,’” he explains.

The shift has also changed how external agencies approach pitching. “A lot of external agencies, I think, won’t pitch against internal teams, and that’s fair enough,” Patrick says. “As far as we can see, having them pitch against each other is quite rare. People recognise that it is often a recipe for difficulty down the line.”

The journey from execution to strategy isn’t achieved overnight. It often begins with small steps: a pilot project with a trusted stakeholder. If that succeeds, others notice—and demand snowballs from there. As Patrick put it: “Find someone you’ve got a good relationship with, convince them to give you a chance. Once that initial trust is earned, the conversation shifts to what else the team can handle.”

Strategic credibility comes with capability. Bringing in senior creative talent and especially strategists unlocks new doors. Strategists help translate marketing briefs into creative opportunities and protect ideas as they move through approvals. And creative leadership is validated through visible wins: “Winning awards still helps,” Patrick points out, “because it gains respect internally and leads to more opportunities.”

Some may wonder if senior talent is hard to attract and retain in an in-house agency. However, working for a brand long-term has its appeal. “Senior creatives can get to a point where they want to have real impact on a business. They like the idea of getting under the hood of a brand and really understanding it,” Patrick explains.

But ambition alone isn’t enough for an in-house team to be successful. To be trusted with higher-value work, these teams must first deliver flawlessly on the basics—the day-to-day, high-volume output that keeps the brand running. Without that operational discipline, the bigger ambitions never materialize.

Looking ahead, there are two forces shaping the next phase of the in-house agency evolution: ambition and technology. The ambition is clear—teams want to raise creative standards, drive effectiveness, and be recognised not for cost-saving, but for strategic value.

At the same time, automation and AI are reshaping the landscape. While hype suggests a revolution, reality is more cautious. “Most brands are still at very early stages, running pilot projects,” Patrick says. But the implications are profound. Many of the production-heavy tasks that in-house teams were built to handle could soon be automated or offshored.

There’s a focus shift happening with in-housing. The future model is likely to be a lean, senior core team of creatives, producers, and strategists with deep brand knowledge, “conducting the orchestra” of partners and technologies around them.

In that world, the agencies that thrive won’t be the ones promising lower cost or faster turnaround. Their edge will come from turning brand intimacy into creative advantage—and proving they are indispensable to the business.

This is the first of three articles from our session with Patrick, each exploring a different theme we touched on, giving space to unpack the insights in a way that is easy to follow.

If you would like to watch the whole conversation straight away, the full recording is already available on our YouTube channel.