A question that appears sooner or later in almost all B2B companies

There’s a fairly recognizable moment in many B2B companies. The business starts to grow, the sales team is moving, real opportunities exist, but marketing doesn’t quite keep up. There’s a lack of focus, a lack of time, or simply a lack of capacity to address everything that “supposedly” needs to be done.

That’s when the question arises:

Should we hire someone? Should we look for an agency? Should we outsource part of the work?

The question seems reasonable. The problem is that, in many cases, it’s poorly framed from the start. Not because a decision doesn’t need to be made, but because it’s formulated as a resource dilemma when it’s actually a design problem. It’s no coincidence that this debate appears in a context where the market for agencies and marketing services continues to grow and transform, as shown by analyses on the evolution of the advertising and marketing services sector globally.

People start talking about staff, suppliers or costs without first defining what role marketing should play within the company and how it should fit with the rest of the organization. And when that happens, it doesn’t really matter which option is chosen: the risk of getting it wrong remains high.

The problem isn’t who executes, but how marketing is understood

In many B2B companies, marketing is still seen as a relatively isolated function. Something that’s activated when leads need to be generated, the website needs improving, or “support” needs to be given to the sales team.

From that logic, the discussion about whether to have an in-house team or external support seems natural. The problem is that marketing rarely works well when thought of that way.

In B2B environments, marketing is deeply linked to the business: to how sales happen, to how purchasing decisions are made, to how trust is built in the medium term, and to how the company’s discourse in its market is articulated. It’s not a layer that can be added or removed without affecting the whole.

When there’s no minimum shared vision about what’s expected from marketing—beyond executing actions— any organizational model falls short. Talent is hired without a clear framework, services are outsourced without strategic criteria, or an agency is expected to “fix” problems that are actually internal.

That’s why, before deciding who does what, it’s worth stopping for a moment and answering a much more uncomfortable but far more relevant question: what role do we want marketing to play in our company and what decisions are we willing to leave in its hands.

What sense does it make to have an in-house team

Having an in-house marketing team makes sense in practically any B2B company that aspires to grow in an orderly manner. Someone inside must know the business in depth, understand the market, coordinate with sales, and be able to make decisions aligned with the organization’s objectives.

That internal knowledge is hard to replace. No external provider, no matter how good, can have from the outset the same understanding of the context, company culture, or internal dynamics.

Now, that same in-house team has fairly clear limits. The first is specialization. Current marketing demands very diverse technical skills that are constantly evolving: analytics, SEO, digital strategy, digital advertising, content, CRM, web technology… Trying to cover all of that with one or two internal profiles usually leads to mediocre solutions or an unsustainable overload, especially in a context where attracting and retaining digital talent remains a structural challenge for most companies.

The second limit is scalability. Marketing needs aren’t constant over time. There are moments of high intensity and others of lower activity. Adjusting an internal structure to that variability isn’t simple and usually generates inefficiencies.

And the third is rigidity. Once a hiring decision has been made, reversing or adjusting it isn’t always easy, especially in contexts of rapid change like the current one. This doesn’t invalidate the in-house team, but it requires being very aware of what can be asked of it and what cannot.

What external support really brings when it’s well planned

External support brings value when understood as a complement and not as a substitute for internal judgment.

Its main strength usually lies in specialization, accumulated experience, and speed of execution.

Agencies and specialized providers work continuously on different projects, with diverse tools and in varied contexts. This allows them to detect patterns, anticipate problems, and apply solutions with a much shorter learning curve than a company whose core business isn’t marketing typically has. It’s not surprising that many organizations opt for this type of support at certain stages, as indicated by various analyses on the pros and cons of outsourced B2B marketing.

Additionally, external support introduces something that’s often underestimated: a perspective less conditioned by internal inertia. It’s not about “coming to say what needs to be done,” but about providing perspective, questioning assumptions, and helping prioritize when everything seems urgent.

That said, not all external support provides value by default. When outsourcing happens without a minimum of internal direction, without clear objectives, or with unrealistic expectations, the result is usually frustrating for both parties. Outsourcing isn’t delegating to disengage.

Why the mixed model almost always appears

In practice, most B2B companies that function end up adopting some type of mixed model, even if they don’t formally define it as such. Part of the work is done internally and part is supported by external resources.

It’s usually not an ideological decision or a middle point between two extremes. It’s more of a natural evolution. As the company grows, some functions are internalized and others remain outside. What makes sense to outsource today may become part of the in-house team tomorrow, and vice versa.

The time factor is key here. Marketing structures aren’t static. They change with the market, with technology, with people, and with business priorities. The mixed model works when it allows adaptation to those changes without breaking the system.

Thinking of marketing as something that can be redesigned

One of the most common errors in marketing organization is thinking that decisions are definitive. Someone is hired, an agency is signed, or a tool is implemented as if they were irreversible choices.

The reality is that almost nothing in marketing is.

Markets change, tools evolve, people enter and leave organizations. In recent years, moreover, the digital ecosystem itself and the way information is searched for is transforming rapidly, driven by the emergence of language models and AI-based assistants.

Expecting a structure designed at a specific moment to remain valid for years is usually a constant source of friction.

Thinking of marketing as an architecture that can be redesigned—adjusted, expanded, simplified—is much healthier than looking for the “perfect structure”. It’s not about changing for the sake of changing, but about assuming that flexibility is a competitive advantage.

Formulating the question properly is more important than quickly choosing the answer

Returning to the starting point, the question “in-house team, agency or external support?” is usually poorly framed because it oversimplifies a problem that’s deeper.

Before deciding who executes, it’s worth understanding what’s expected from marketing, how it relates to the business, and what degree of control, specialization, and flexibility the company needs at each moment.

There’s no universally valid model. What does seem clear is that organizational decisions work better when they respond to a conscious design and not to a poorly resolved urgency.

Thinking through the problem properly doesn’t guarantee always getting it right, but it greatly reduces the probability of making a structural mistake.