The right question is not whether your creative team should be in-house or external. It is what capability you actually need.
In-house or agency?
It is a question that comes up regularly in sport, and there is no universal right answer. Both models can work. The important thing is understanding what you need your creative operation to do, where its strengths should sit and when the decision should be reviewed.
We have experience of both sides. Our founder began his sporting career as an in-house resource at Saracens at the dawn of professionalism, and we have subsequently worked with organisations with in-house teams, organisations that use agencies and organisations that use a mixture of the two.
That experience has taught us that the choice is less binary than it first appears.
An in-house team can offer control, flexibility and a known ongoing cost. The resource is close to the organisation and its brand, available when required and well placed to understand the day-to-day pressures.
That proximity can also create problems.
The department that shouts loudest can start to dictate the workflow. Briefing failures can create unnecessary pressure. A small team can struggle with holidays, absence or sudden peaks in demand. If the creative resource is relatively junior, it may also lack the influence needed to challenge the organisation or establish a consistent creative direction.
There is another risk: insularity. A team that spends all its time responding to internal requests can become reactive rather than proactive. The brand can end up following rather than leading.
External resource brings a different set of advantages. An agency can provide specialist experience, additional resource and perspectives from outside the organisation. There is no need to carry the same staffing, hardware, software and HR overheads, and resource can be scaled according to demand.
But external support has its own challenges.
Unless the agency understands sport, it may not appreciate the nuances and pressures of the industry. Turnaround can be slower or more expensive. Budgets need to be agreed for individual jobs depending on the relationship, and poorly managed amendments can quickly consume time and money.
So which is better?
Neither.
The better question is: what does your organisation need from its creative capability?
Daily reactive work may be better held close to the organisation. Specialist expertise, strategic challenge, additional production capacity or an outside perspective may be better brought in.
For many sporting organisations, the most effective answer may be a combination.
The important thing is to take a holistic view of the operation: current resource, procedures, budgets and ambitions. Then decide what needs to happen now, what needs to change over the medium term and what the organisation wants its creative capability to look like in the future.
The best creative model is not the one that fits a label.
It is the one that fits the organisation.
Talk to us about reviewing your creative operation.
