The real cost of building versus buying a marketing team
Most comparisons put a salary next to a retainer and stop there. This one loads both sides properly, counting employer burden, recruitment, ramp, tooling, attrition and the management time nobody books, then prices the hybrid too.
| Annual | |
|---|---|
| Salaries (2 roles) | $141k |
| Employer costs and benefits | $31k |
| Tooling and subscriptions | $18k |
| Management time | $8k |
Headline salary is barely two thirds of the real figure. Comparisons that stop at the retainer against the salary are the reason in-house moves so often disappoint on cost.
Why this tool exists
The decision to hire a marketing team or retain an agency is usually made on a comparison that is wrong by a wide margin: a salary figure next to a retainer figure. One of those numbers is nearly complete and the other is roughly two-thirds of the real cost.
In-house cost is not salary. It is salary plus employer burden, plus recruitment, plus the tooling an agency would have included, plus the leadership hours spent managing people, plus a ramp period during which a new hire produces a fraction of their eventual output at full price, and then all of it again every time someone leaves. Agency cost, meanwhile, is rarely just the retainer: onboarding fees, pass-through costs and annual escalation all belong in the comparison.
This modeler prices all three routes across a horizon you choose, with every hidden cost exposed as its own line. It also reports what cost alone cannot tell you: capability coverage, time to full output, and cost through the critical first six months.
- Total cost of in-house, agency and hybrid across 12 to 60 months
- The breakeven month where in-house becomes cheaper, or proof there isn't one
- A full cost breakdown showing which hidden line is actually driving the answer
- Capability coverage and time-to-output for each route
- The strengths and risks of each option, stated plainly
Who it's for
Anyone about to sign an employment contract or a retainer.
Deciding whether the first marketing hire or an agency comes first.
Building a case for headcount against an incumbent agency.
Need fully loaded costs, not a salary line, before approving a hire.
Quantify what attrition and ramp actually cost the marketing plan.
Model the hybrid split between an internal lead and outsourced delivery.
Show a client the total cost of the in-house alternative, honestly.
Time the transition from agency to internal team correctly.
Get full capability coverage without funding six salaries.
How it works
Pick the capabilities, set the assumptions, compare the routes.
Nine roles with salary benchmarks, and you can override any of them
Burden, recruitment, attrition, tooling and management hours
Retainer, onboarding, pass-throughs and annual escalation
Cumulative curves, breakeven month, and coverage beyond cost
Nine roles with salary benchmarks, and you can override any of them
Burden, recruitment, attrition, tooling and management hours
Retainer, onboarding, pass-throughs and annual escalation
Cumulative curves, breakeven month, and coverage beyond cost
Features
The lines a napkin comparison leaves out.
Nine benchmarked roles
Head of Marketing through to Social Media Manager, each with a salary benchmark, ramp period and agency-equivalent rate.
Fully loaded in-house cost
Employer burden, recruitment fees, salary inflation, tooling and management hours, all as separate visible lines.
Attrition modelling
Every expected departure re-triggers the recruitment fee and another ramp period, which is where multi-year in-house cases quietly break.
A real hybrid option
Choose which capabilities stay internal; the rest are priced at agency rates, with a reduced scope and reduced management load.
Cumulative cost curves
Where the lines cross is the month the cheaper route changes, usually later than the in-house advocate expects.
Coverage and speed
Capability coverage and months-to-full-output, because two routes at the same price are not the same decision.
What you'll get
Enough to take into the meeting where this gets decided.
In-house, agency and hybrid across your chosen horizon.
When in-house cumulative cost drops below the agency's, if it does.
Which hidden cost is actually driving the difference.
How much of what your plan requires each route actually covers.
Months before each route is producing at capacity.
Every line and every month, ready for the finance model.
See it in action
PreviewThe modeler is live at the top of this page with a four-role team loaded.
| Annual | |
|---|---|
| Salaries (2 roles) | $141k |
| Employer costs and benefits | $31k |
| Tooling and subscriptions | $18k |
| Management time | $8k |
Headline salary is barely two thirds of the real figure. Comparisons that stop at the retainer against the salary are the reason in-house moves so often disappoint on cost.
Why it changes the decision
Once burden, recruitment and tooling are on screen, the in-house number typically rises 40–60%, and the comparison finally becomes fair.
An agency is producing in week two; a team of four is at full output in month five. That gap has a cost, and it is now visible.
At 18% annual attrition over three years, the recruitment line stops being a rounding error.
The option most companies eventually land on, priced properly rather than treated as a compromise.
Use cases
Where the model settles the question.
Founder weighing one generalist against a small agency retainer.
Model a single Head of Marketing at full burden against the retainer.
Usually a hybrid: an internal owner for strategy with agency execution, at similar total cost and much wider coverage.
Retainer feels expensive after three years and the team wants to internalise it.
Model the four or five roles needed to replace the agency scope, at real market salaries.
A breakeven month that is often further out than expected once recruitment and ramp are included.
Finance sees a salary request; marketing sees a capability gap.
Export the full cost breakdown for all three routes.
A conversation about coverage and speed rather than one about a salary band.
A departure has left a capability gap and a hiring cycle ahead.
Compare replacing the role against outsourcing that capability for the interim.
A costed answer to whether to bridge with an agency or wait for the right hire.
How the model works
In-house cost is built month by month from salary, inflated annually, multiplied by employer burden, with recruitment landing in month one and again for each expected replacement given your attrition rate. Tooling and management time are added every month. Nothing is hidden in an overhead percentage: each line is visible and adjustable.
Agency cost is the retainer escalating annually, plus onboarding in month one, plus pass-through costs, plus your own time managing the relationship. Agencies are cheaper to manage than employees, but they are not free to manage, and that time belongs in the comparison.
The hybrid re-prices the outsourced roles at their agency-equivalent monthly rates rather than at your full retainer, with a reduced onboarding fee and halved management load, which reflects how these arrangements actually work when an internal lead owns the brief.
Ramp periods and time-to-full-output are reported alongside cost, because the fastest route and the cheapest route are rarely the same one.
Each departure costs a fee plus a ramp. Over a three-year horizon this line frequently decides the answer.
The model tracks which capabilities each route covers, so you can see when a cheaper option is cheaper because it does less.
Frequently asked questions
Related resources
The decisions on either side of this one.
Price the decision before you commit to it
An employment contract and a twelve-month retainer are both hard to reverse. Ten minutes with the full cost picture is cheap by comparison.