We were approached recently by the Chief Communications Officer of a well-funded entertainment industry start-up. He had recognized early-on that a properly-resourced communications function was going to be essential to achieving his company’s initial objectives: to build a reputation for good work; to raise the profile and prestige of the new brand; and to drive interest in specific company products among potential customers, investors and employees. His plan was advanced, he had a staffing chart which showed how he planned to build his team. Then it occurred to him “can i get a better bang for my buck by simply outsourcing the function to an agency?” i.e. would his company be better served by spending the money set aside for salaries, benefits, training and payroll taxes on a good agency?

He approached us to discuss this. In the past I have worked at agencies in which this was not an unusual client arrangement. At Keymer, we have never officially been a wholly outsourced function, usually serving as a strategic asset to an integrated in-house team, though thinking about it, it is relatively common for us to end up as a de facto external communications department. I committed to weighing the pros and cons of outsourcing for him. The question I asked myself was could we provide an effective integrated team, reporting directly to the c-suite, for the cost of two mid-level executives and a single member of support staff?

I wonder what you think? Is this a wise strategy for a company that is able to staff and resource an in-house PR department? What are the pros and cons? leave comments here and I will follow up with the fruits of our deliberations in a future post. (SK)