In-house marketing is dramatically changing the way brands and agencies are operating across Europe.
According to a new BannerFloor and Digid report, an astonishing 91 percent of brand decision-makers have pursued marketing, or all, for their indoors.
Transparency, greater control over creative, and better return on investment (ROI) are just some of the reasons.
Did the traditional marketing model have its day? Well, the in-housing trend is most definitely disrupting the status quo.
Still, things don’t go as well as you’d imagine. Issues with more than confidence to deliver and deliver in a bit of depth, and long-term confidence in the innings at home, introduce a movement that is still very evolving.
For brands and agencies alike, there is much to consider.
In-house marketing status in Europe
The report surveyed 200 brands, in-housing agencies and consultancies across Europe to discover the biggest drivers, barriers, and brands facing their in-house marketing.
And the overall situation of in-housing is much more complex than expected.
Instead of relying on outside support, many brands appear ready to go it alone. A surprising 61% of brands admit to using a different in-house agency. While further 19% have a marketing team with full digital qualifications.
The confidence to make changes in in-house marketing is very high, with 9 out of 10 brands being positive on moving decision makers in-house. In contrast, the remainder of the respondents were not convinced at all.
Transparency and ROI are triggering change
But what are the reasons for the shift?
Concern over the level of transparency is a dominating factor when using external agencies – this is surprising when viewed in the broader context of the industry.
The past few years have seen many stories that emerge around the world about agency costs and so-called “black-boxing” for things like programmatic advertising. Many industry leaders were no doubt bothered by P&G chief brand officer Mark Pritchard’s call to end the “archaic madmen”.
On the whole, there is a way to get clarity on in-housing decisions.
Nevertheless, other triggers for the in-housing trend are more practical. Efficiency and cost savings were popular reasons for moving indoors. Also the need to be more agile and reactive.
It is not that a home relocation is an easy proposition. The current talent shortage and acquiring skills for a capable in-house team were highlighted as a struggle. Also, the search for the right technical resources was another obstacle.
However, for brands that step into in-house, the benefits of in-housing were felt to overcome short-term difficulties.
Is the emphasis on ROI reducing creativity?
Nevertheless, among those inquiring for reports, there is a crisis over the role of creativity. Astonishing 88% of brands believed that marketers are now placing too much emphasis on ROI over creativity.
Does this result focus on spending on creativity?
According to the brands, time and high cost were marked as barriers to creativity in the home. But moving into this puzzle once again was the acquisition of skills and talent. 1/3 of the respondents expressed concern that lack of skills and talent is preventing them from being creative.
In fact, the vast majority of those questioned (96%!) Believe it to be an innovator of in-house marketing – yet, 1 in 5 also believe that applying technology correctly Inability to do so is damaging creativity.
The implication for in-house brands is that having technology is one thing, being able to use it for the benefit of both ROI and creativity is another thing.
Clearly a balance has to be found between quick returns and long term ROI.
For Ville Hejari, CMO of Finnish game studio Rovio Entertainment, this entry proves to be surprising, “especially when thinking about developments in the field of advertising technology. If anything, more advanced technology and automation tools can be used in-house.” Will be more capable of operating. ”And he is not the only one thinking.
Confidence in the application of in-house marketing is high among brands, with 58% insisting they can run their own in-house teams alone, and another 35% stating that they will occasionally use external support.