The agency vs. in-house debate for Search is, to an extent a red herring. It shouldn’t be a debate about who does it, but how it is done. Even if an agency is appointed, brands are not devoid of responsibility for the strategic planning piece. Though sadly, many brands absolve themselves of this responsibility, to the detriment of their campaign results.
Whether in-house or via an agency, there are some common considerations for the brand; e.g. who owns the PPC account data (agency or client)? Who owns the third party technology license? Are the business goals and sales targets being shared with the campaign manager (whether in-house or agency)? Who will manage the information flow between the business and the online marketing team? Are campaign management techniques up to date or tired? Who handles the budget modelling? Can the agency influence changes to the website to improve conversion? Who will feed the search marketing (and behavioural) insight into the broader integrated comms planning piece?
We find that there isn’t necessarily a one size fits all approach to managing Search. Many retailers and large ecommerce / online brands derive such a high volume of sales and revenue from search marketing, that it is simply far too business critical to be managed out-of-house.
And all is never as it seems in that many agencies – including search pure plays – subcontract PPC to cheaper suppliers (who tend to be based abroad). Again, this can be both very cost effective and disastrous if the supplier relationship isn’t carefully managed and the strategic goals communicated by the primary agent.
Paid search has become a media for the masses, largely thanks to Google’s sales strategy for AdWords, so agencies definitely have to work extra hard with Search to demonstrate to their clients why their clients shouldn’t simply DIY.