A recent report from the ANA indicates that the penetration of in-house agencies for marketers has shot up to 58% in 2013.
This is from 42% in 2008.
Among those companies with in-house agencies, more than half — 56% — claim to have moved established business that used to be handled by their external agency to their in-house agency.
Why is this happening?
Is the value equation still there for out-of-house agencies?
That depends on what 'value' marketers think out-of-house agencies provide?
I think the person who answered this best was a gentleman called Hal Riney.
Here's what Riney said.
"The emotional element is the only reason why ad agencies exist. Anyone can analyze. Anyone can strategize. Anyone with simple information in hand can find the target market. But only advertising people can take all of this information, along with the relatively unimportant claims and promises of our clients' products and add the emotion that makes a message work."
The continual emphasis on the bottom line - i.e. cost-saving - has accelerated the growth of in-house agencies.
It also has accelerated the growth of uninteresting and avoidable advertising.
Focusing on the bottom line seems to be a sure way to drive your brand to the bottom of any consideration lists.