Outsource New Business or Build In-House? Key Considerations for Independent Agencies
Many agencies hit the ceiling with referrals. The real question is what comes next: outsourcing lead gen, in-house growth — or something in between?
Welcome
With this piece, I’m kicking off my Substack — a place where I’ll share practical insights and my observations on agency growth: what works, what fails, and why.
Who This Is For
Referrals and repeat work get most agencies started. But for smaller independents (15–50 FTEs), there comes a point where they’re not enough to take you to the next growth phase. If that ceiling feels familiar, this series is for you.
At this stage, pipelines are still heavily reliant on word of mouth. That’s fine for survival, but breaking into larger accounts requires a more proactive and strategic approach.
Agencies can grow in many ways — building brand and thought leadership, forming partnerships, orchestrating referrals. But when leaders want faster, more predictable, and more controllable growth, outbound, targeted outreach, and ABM usually rise to the top.
And that’s when the critical decision appears: do you outsource new business, build it in-house, or find another path?
TL;DR
Referrals only take smaller agencies so far — breaking the growth ceiling requires proactive new business.
Outsourcing works only if you already have clarity on ICP, positioning, and messaging. Without that, it leads to misalignment and wasted budget.
Building in-house works only if you avoid the common traps: wrong talent archetype, unrealistic timelines, underestimating process complexity, and misusing tech.
Neither path is “wrong.” Both can work, but only with the right foundations.
A hybrid approach is emerging for agencies without in-house expertise who want to keep control of strategy while generating results fast.
Why This Decision Matters
Agencies often underestimate how different proactive growth is from client service. Account managers and client leads are not growth operators. Farming existing relationships is not the same as hunting new ones.
That’s why the outsource vs. in-house decision is such a critical inflection point. Both paths can work — but both are littered with pitfalls.
From my experience working with lead-gen partners — from founder-led boutiques like Cherry Business Consulting to more established groups like Ingenuity — success always came down to one factor:
Did the agency have its new business strategy and positioning foundations in place?
In other words: was there clarity on ICP, differentiation, USPs, how agency clients prefer to buy, and what messaging hooks resonate? Without that alignment, neither outsourcing nor in-house hiring delivers much beyond frustration.
Outsourcing: When It Works, and When It Doesn’t
The Extension Model
Outsourced lead-gen can add real value — but only when it’s treated as an extension of a system you already own.
Agencies that succeed with outsourcing already have:
A clear ICP and qualification criteria.
Service positioning and value propositions that resonate.
Messaging hooks aligned to the buyer journey.
Internal oversight to guide outreach and campaigns.
Here, the partner’s role is capacity, not strategy.
The Common Trap
Most agencies approach it the other way round. They assume proactive new business = sending templated emails, and expect partners to “get” their positioning, ICP, and messaging.
That’s where misalignment creeps in. I’ve seen relationships collapse not because the partner was poor, but because the growth strategy wasn’t established or owned internally.
Best case: the agency realises early what’s not working and pivots.
Worst case: they spend months nurturing the wrong buyers — only to later discover they were chasing poor-fit leads with the wrong budgets and needs.
It’s the classic case of treating the lead-gen partner like a neglected child and then expecting them to build a rocket ship.
The Commoditised Work Caveat
Outsourcing can also “work” when you’re selling tactical, commoditised services with a broad ICP and low differentiation. At that point, blasting outreach at scale will generate volume.
But let’s be honest: competing on price is a race to the bottom. If you’re aiming to break through the ceiling and win larger accounts, this path rarely works.
The Iterative Reality Check
You don’t need every detail perfectly defined before you start. But you do need to own the discovery and strategy process.
Outsourced partners can help with execution.
They cannot invent your ICP, positioning, or narrative for you.
When agencies treat proactive growth as “sending more emails” and leave everything to lead-gen partners, it always ends in wasted budget and frustration.
Building In-House: The Hidden Challenges
On the other side is building an internal growth function. On paper, it feels safer: more control, more ownership. In practice, it brings its own traps.
1. Hiring the Wrong Talent Archetype
The most common mistake? Promoting account directors into new biz roles.
The issue isn’t bad hires — it’s role mismatch.
Account management = farming.
New business = hunting.
Hunting means researching at scale, mapping accounts, testing ICPs and messaging, building campaigns, understanding buyer journeys, and converting cold outreach into conversations.
Without systems to enable this, even your best account director will struggle.
2. Misunderstanding the Time Horizon
Even with the right hire, many founders expect results in weeks. In reality, breaking into larger accounts through outbound often takes 6–12 months.
And before deals close, you’ll need to test and refine ICPs, positioning, and messaging. That learning process can’t be skipped.
Without setting expectations upfront, leaders get frustrated, pull the plug too early, and drift back to referrals and passive new biz.
3. Underestimating Process Complexity
Business development isn’t just sending generic templates to companies you “could potentially work with.”
It’s a system that spans:
Research and targeting.
Signal spotting and qualification.
Messaging and narrative development.
Sequenced outreach and nurturing.
Pipeline management and discipline.
Without clear expectations and upfront commitment, initiatives fizzle fast.
4. Misusing Technology
Modern biz dev depends on CRMs, sequencing tools, enrichment, and increasingly AI.
The trap? Agencies adopt them in fragments — a half-set-up CRM here, a few campaigns in Lemlist there.
Tools amplify clarity. Without clarity, they just scale noise.
The Trade-Offs: Capacity vs. Control
Outsourcing gives capacity — but fails if you don’t already have positioning clarity and strategy foundations.
Building in-house gives control — but fails if you underestimate role-fit, timelines, and process complexity.
Neither option is “wrong.” Both can work. The key is being strategic and clear-eyed about what’s required — and whether your agency is ready.
What’s Emerging Next
In recent years, a hybrid approach has been gaining traction. Instead of outsourcing or building full new biz teams from scratch, some agencies are starting to design growth engines — systems that combine external guidance with hands-on execution, while keeping ownership of strategy internal.
This makes particular sense for agencies that lack in-house growth expertise but want to stay in control of their strategy and learnings, while still generating results without years of trial and error.
I’ll explore how this model works — and why more agencies are starting to explore it now — in the next post.