Build, Borrow, or Buy? How Marketing Leaders Resource for Growth

TL;DR: Marketing resourcing isn't about choosing between agencies or in-house teams. It's about designing the right execution mix, one that balances speed, control, specialization, and cost efficiency with business value and execution risk.

The Build, Borrow, or Buy model provides a practical framework:

• Build when you need iteration loops, embedded knowledge, or long-term leverage.

• Borrow when the scope is clear, but continuity isn't necessary, such as for project-based or part-time help.

• Buy when the work is high-volume, cross-functional, or best handled by a team with structured processes.

Smart leaders don't just focus on headcount or vendor lists; they consider execution risk, portfolio size, and organizational leverage, because how you resource isn't just an operational decision; it's how you scale.

Marketing teams are under mounting pressure to do more with less while delivering faster and measurable impact. According to Gartner's 2025 CMO Spend Survey, marketing budgets now account for only 7.7% of company revenue, flat from the previous year and significantly lower than pre-pandemic levels of around 11%. Nearly 40% of CMOs plan to reduce spending on agencies, and more than half indicate that their current finances are insufficient to support their strategies.

In this challenging environment, the central question is not 'Should we outsource or bring it in-house?', which represents a false duality. Effective teams should focus on designing a deliberate execution mix that balances in-house talent, agency partnerships, and freelance support, optimized for speed, control, specialization, and cost efficiency across functions and growth stages.

That's where the Build, Borrow, or Buy model comes in.

The Wrong Question: Agencies vs. In-House.

Before you can design the right execution mix, it's essential to reframe the question altogether.

It's easy to view resourcing decisions as permanent choices: should we build everything in-house for greater control and consistency, or outsource for enhanced speed and scalability?

However, this perspective assumes that marketing day-to-day work itself remains static, which is rarely the case. Campaigns evolve from launch to iteration, new markets bring different language and creative requirements, and teams may grow, reorg, or pivot to adapt to changing GTM strategies. Locking to one model too early can lead to bottlenecks down the line.

Not all marketing executions should be treated equally. Some capabilities — like lifecycle ops, campaign analytics, or core creative strategy — benefit from being handled in-house due to their longer learning curves, brand context, or long-term leverage. Other tasks, such as creating localized landing pages, managing paid media ops, or producing video content, may be better suited for external partners who can deliver consistent results quickly without overloading internal teams.

Ultimately, the key issue is not whether a task is "owned" or "outsourced." What matters is that it is structured, resourced, and reviewed in a way that aligns with its business impact and execution risk.

As teams grow, programs scale while execution becomes fragmented, and the decisions we face become increasingly complex. This is why having a model in place is essential. It may not make every answer simple, but it reveals the right trade-offs.

What Actually Drives the Right Mix.

Resourcing only works if it keeps up with how marketing changes. Campaigns go from launch to iteration, new markets require different languages and creative strategies, and teams may grow, reorganize, or pivot. Locking into a single model too early can cause bottlenecks later.

Not all marketing execution should be approached in the same way.

Certain capabilities, such as lifecycle ops, campaign analytics, or core creative strategy, can benefit from in-house ownership because they are closely linked to learning loops, brand context, and long-term leverage. Other tasks. On the other hand, creating localized landing pages, managing paid media ops, or producing video content might be more efficiently handled by external partners who can deliver consistent results quickly without overloading internal teams.

The key consideration is not whether a task is "owned" or "outsourced" but whether it's structured, resourced, and evaluated in a way that is relevant to its business impact and execution risk.

That's where the Build, Borrow, or Buy model becomes useful — a practical way to assess resourcing decisions using four lenses: speed, control, specialization, and cost efficiency.

Lens	Build (In-House)	Borrow (Freelancers)	Buy (Agency)
Speed	Best for long-term consistency, shared context	Great for quick-turn, narrow-scope deliverables	Fast scale, especially across markets or functions
Control	High - ideal for IP ownership and iteration	Moderate - depends on talent and process clarity	Low - requires tight briefs and scope control
Specialization	Critical when the capability is core to GTM or brand	Best for rare or emerging skill sets	Suited for packaged services or cross-functional work
Cost Efficiency	Improves over time when scoped and repeated	High - pay for output, not overhead	Efficient at a smaller scale, expensive at high volume

How This Looks in Practice:

At times, the decision about who should perform the work also hinges on whether the budget supports bringing the work in-house. From my experience, I typically avoid adding headcount unless there is enough program budget to make the role significant, usually three to five times the headcount cost. This ensures that the individual is responsible for owning a portfolio and driving meaningful outcomes. It also aligns with how high-performing teams are structured, where headcount costs account for approximately 25% of total marketing spending.

This rationale applies even to roles that don't directly manage budgets, such as content, brand, or marketing operations. In these instances, the decision shifts from budget proportions to organizational leverage. Is this individual facilitating campaigns across multiple regions? Are they supporting lifecycle, paid, product, and partner initiatives simultaneously? Would we otherwise be hiring multiple vendors for fragmented outputs lacking context? If the answer is yes, it's often more efficient and scalable to bring that capability in-house.

The most effective execution models evolve over time. They are not built around cost containment or ownership pride; instead, they focus on clarity, velocity, and impact at every stage of growth.

Real-World Patterns That Work

When you start examining resources through the Build, Borrow, or Buy framework, you begin to see patterns, not just in what gets resourced but also in when and why.

One of the most common mistakes is not choosing the right mix but instead locking into one option too early or for the wrong reasons. Teams often insist on building everything in-house for control or default to agencies for speed without considering long-term costs. The most effective models evolve based on capability maturity, campaign repeatability, and internal readiness.

Here's how that plays out in practice:

• Build for iteration loops and embedded knowledge: Functions like lifecycle operations, integrated campaign tracking, and CRM logic are difficult to outsource effectively. This is not due to a lack of skill on the part of agencies; rather, the value lies in iteration speed, internal alignment, and data fidelity. These functions improve over time, both through proximity and direct ownership.

• Borrow when the work is short-term, scoped, and does not warrant a dedicated hire or agency. This could involve hiring a freelance designer to adapt existing assets for a regional campaign or bringing on a project coordinator to help organize a field event. Borrowing is also effective for recurring yet lightweight tasks, such as community moderation or scheduling social posts, where the embedded context is less important than achieving consistent output.

• Buy to scale cross-market execution. For high-volume, time-sensitive execution across multiple channels or regions, a well-briefed agency can serve as a throughput engine. Asset localization, web production, event operations, and media activation often fall into this category. However, they work effectively only if the SOW with the agency is tightly defined and performance is closely managed.

These principles aren't rigid rules; they are patterns that apply when the nature of the work, the team, and the growth stage are aligned. As your organization evolves, what you borrowed last year may be something you build this year. Similarly, what you bought to launch may be phased out as you reach a point of diminishing returns.

A framework is only useful when it is flexible.

That's why I view the lenses of Speed, Control, Specialization, and Cost Efficiency as starting points rather than absolutes. In practice, execution decisions are influenced by a broader array of variables, including program scale, market complexity, internal capabilities, technology maturity, and even leadership philosophy.

Consider cost; for instance, the speed, control, specialization, and cost-efficiency framework might suggest that Build is always more cost-effective than Buy, but that's not always the case. If I'm spending less than $500k per year on paid media, I'd prefer to pay a 10-15% agency fee than hire a full-time specialist. This approach is faster to activate, easier to manage, and more efficient at that scale.

However, once my spending exceeds that threshold, or if I require regional optimization, creative iteration, or integration into our CRM system, I will establish an in-house growth function. At that stage, I'm not just paying for execution; I'm investing in ownership, context, and continuous performance improvement.

On the other hand, freelancers (Borrow) make the most sense when the work is clearly scoped and independent, such as managing a tradeshow, localizing a campaign asset, or translating a deck. They operate quickly, require minimal onboarding, and help avoid the overhead associated with retainers or full-time roles.

Sometimes, I will still build early, even if it's more expensive. For example, lifecycle automation and campaign analytics are too integral to GTM learning loops to outsource effectively. In such cases, control and iteration speed may take precedence over short-term efficiency.

How to Make Any Mix Work

Most resourcing decisions are not inherently wrong; they often falter during execution.

Even when the model fits the tasks at hand, teams run into friction due to unclear responsibilities, fragmented workflows, or different vendors and functions operating on mismatched timelines. You don't necessarily need a perfect mix; you need one that works effectively, scales without constant escalation, rebriefing, or rework.

In reality, most companies don't maintain a clear separation between Build, Borrow, and Buy strategies. Campaigns often involve in-house marketers, external freelancers, and agencies working together. Creative assets move across brand, product, and performance teams. Execution breaks down not because of the model itself but because no one is responsible for orchestrating the process.

That's why maintaining consistency starts with clearly defining the work:

• What needs to be embedded vs. what needs to be scoped?

• What is repeatable enough to templatize?

• Where does speed in iteration matter more than polish?

It also requires implementing the right systems — such as shared workflows, version control, and review layers — that facilitate operations without relying on memory or frequent meetings.

In practice, this means setting up a campaign management system with centralized tracking but distributed delivery. It involves having a content engine that separates creation from adaptation. A freelancer's brief should already include voice, audience, and asset structure so that the output doesn't require multiple rounds of revisions to meet basic standards.

Many teams focus on who is doing the work, whether it is in-house, freelance, or agency-based. However, the more strategic question is how the work progresses across systems, roles, and cycles. This is where scaling can either flourish or falter. The model doesn't need to be perfect; it needs to be coordinated and designed for your team's actual workflow.

Resourcing Is a Strategic Act

The most effective marketing leaders don't just build teams; they design execution models that can scale in tandem with the business.

Every resourcing decision, whether hiring a new role, outsourcing a region, or engaging a short-term contractor, is indicative of something larger: how you value the work, how you prioritize speed versus iteration, and how you create leverage over time.

This is why the real question is not simply "in-house vs. agency." Instead, it's: What do we need this capability to achieve, and what is the most effective way to deliver that outcome, both now and in the future?

Execution isn't just about output; it's about fit — how well it aligns with the maturity of your team, the complexity of the work, and the strategic phase you are in. This fit evolves over time.

What you borrow this quarter, you may decide to build next year. What you buy to facilitate scaling might be replaced when the need for iteration becomes a bottleneck. Good resourcing models are adaptable to changing contexts rather than being driven by pride or personal preference.

Ultimately, how you approach resourcing is not just an operational decision; it shapes the pathways you create for growth.