Dave Pasternack of MediaPost’s SearchInsider column wrote today about the debate between in-house and outsourced search marketing campaigns. He correctly termed this debate as ridiculous. but I don’t think it was for the right reason.
Dave labels the debate ridiculous because the value of external search agencies is well-understood. I guess that’s a good point, but it’s also true that no agency can do the whole job of a search campaign. They can’t be responsible for updating pages, for tracking conversion metrics, or countless other things that your company’s staff must do.
So, I think it is a ridiculous debate because no company should try to do a completely in-house or outsourced program.
Unless you are the smallest of businesses, it makes sense to get some expert help on any kind of Internet marketing. If you hire an accountant or a lawyer, you might consider a marketing consultant, too. Or you should at least attend a conference, buy a book, or get some kind of training. It won’t be easy for you to keep up with everything going on all by yourself—you already have a job.
But it’s equally nutty to think that you can outsource your problems. It’s seductive, it’s tempting, but it is still wrong. Your accountant doesn’t make your financial decisions, even if he does your books. Your lawyer doesn’t decide on your deals, even if he reviews your contracts. You can’t outsource search marketing (or any other kind of Internet marketing), even though you can outsource certain parts of it.
You need to be involved with your search marketing efforts, because you need to make strategic decisions, because you know your customers and your offerings best, and because you (or your employees) must execute that strategy.
Don’t get wrapped up in the ridiculous debate about in-house vs. outsourced search marketing. Instead, take a cold look at your organization to understand what you must do and what you must get help with, and divide the tasks between your team and your agency to get the total job done most effectively.
