Should You Hire an Agency?

You’re building a Web3 project and need marketing help. Should you hire in-house or work with an agency?

Most founders make this decision based on budget or convenience. That’s backwards. The right choice depends on your stage, capabilities, and what you’re actually trying to accomplish.

This guide breaks down when agencies make sense, when they don’t, and how to structure your growth team for maximum impact without wasting money.

The Real Cost of Building In-House

Hiring seems straightforward. Post jobs, interview candidates, bring people on payroll. But most founders underestimate what building an effective Web3 marketing team actually requires.

A functional Web3 marketing operation needs multiple specialized roles. You need someone managing community across Discord and Telegram. Someone running social media and content. Someone handling PR and media relationships. Someone coordinating influencer partnerships. Someone analyzing data and optimizing campaigns. Someone overseeing strategy and coordinating everything.

That’s minimum six roles. Factor in recruitment costs, onboarding time, tools, benefits, and inevitable turnover. Most founders underestimate total cost of ownership for full marketing teams.

Time compounds costs. Finding qualified Web3 marketing talent takes months. Good candidates have multiple offers. Once hired, they need 2-3 months to ramp up and understand your project deeply. You’re 4-6 months in before seeing real output.

Management overhead matters too. Marketing teams need direction, coordination, and integration with product and business strategy. Someone senior needs to own this, pulling time from other critical work.

The hidden cost is opportunity cost. While you’re recruiting and ramping a team, your competitors are executing. In fast-moving Web3 markets, six-month delays often mean missing critical windows.

When In-House Actually Makes Sense

Despite costs, in-house teams are right for specific situations.

If you’ve already raised significant funding (Series A+) and have runway to invest in infrastructure, building internal capability makes sense. You can afford the upfront investment and longer timeline to productivity.

When your project is established with proven product-market fit and existing community momentum, in-house teams can execute against clear playbooks. They’re optimizing and scaling what already works rather than figuring out what works.

If marketing is genuinely core to your competitive advantage—not just important, but differentiating—you need owned capability. Projects where community and brand are the product itself should build in-house expertise.

Companies planning to build multiple products or launch multiple tokens over years benefit from permanent marketing infrastructure. The investment amortizes across multiple initiatives.

Control matters for some projects. If you need absolute alignment with specific values or have unique compliance requirements, in-house teams give you direct oversight.

When Agencies Provide Better Value

Agencies make sense in different scenarios, and understanding why matters more than cost comparison alone.

Early-stage projects (pre-launch through initial growth) often lack resources for full teams but need sophisticated execution. Agencies provide immediate access to experienced specialists without six-month ramp-up. You’re executing campaigns while competitors are still interviewing candidates.

When you need specific expertise your team lacks—like securing top-tier media coverage or running performance campaigns—agencies bring proven relationships and processes. Building this capability internally takes years. Accessing it through agencies takes weeks.

Projects requiring campaign-based work rather than ongoing operations benefit from agency flexibility. Launching a token? Running an ICO? Major rebrand? These are defined projects with clear endpoints. Hiring permanent staff for temporary needs wastes money.

Budget constraints favor agencies for straightforward math. $10,000-20,000 monthly with an agency gets you access to 8-10 specialists and established systems. Building equivalent capability in-house costs 3-4x more with longer timeline to results.

Testing and validation matter before major commitments. Working with agencies on 3-6 month engagements lets you validate strategies and understand what works before making permanent hires. Learn what good looks like, then decide whether to build internally.

The Hybrid Approach Most Projects Actually Need

The either-or framing is wrong for most projects. The optimal structure combines strategic in-house leadership with agency execution.

Hire one experienced Web3 marketing leader in-house who understands your project deeply, owns strategy and positioning, coordinates external partners, and manages relationships with community. This person provides strategic direction and internal advocacy.

Partner with specialized agencies for execution across different capabilities. One agency might handle community management and social media. Another manages PR and media relationships. A third runs performance campaigns. Your in-house leader coordinates everything.

This hybrid model delivers several advantages. You get immediate access to specialized expertise without building full teams. Costs scale up and down based on needs and budget. Strategic consistency comes from in-house leadership while tactical execution leverages proven agency capabilities. You maintain flexibility to change partners if performance doesn’t meet expectations.

As you grow and validate what works, selectively bring high-value functions in-house. Maybe you hire a community manager once you understand community strategy. Or bring content in-house after agencies help you find your voice. Build permanent capability around proven strategies, not experimental ones.

Evaluating Agency Capabilities Honestly

If you decide agencies make sense for your situation, choosing the right partner matters enormously. Most founders evaluate agencies poorly.

Look beyond portfolio polish. Pretty case studies don’t predict results for your project. Ask specific questions about their process, how they’ve handled challenges similar to yours, and what didn’t work in past campaigns. Agencies willing to discuss failures show honesty and learning orientation.

Evaluate Web3 expertise critically. Many traditional marketing agencies added “crypto” to their services without deep understanding. Ask about their team’s background in Web3, specific projects they’ve worked on in your category, and their understanding of your technology and community dynamics.

Assess relationship depth, not just contact lists. Agencies claiming connections with hundreds of influencers or journalists often have superficial relationships. Probe for specifics about how they’ve worked with key contacts, what results those relationships drove, and how they maintain network quality.

Understand their strategic approach. Good agencies ask hard questions about your project before proposing tactics. They should challenge your assumptions, identify gaps in your positioning, and explain why certain strategies won’t work. Agencies that agree with everything lack strategic thinking.

Check alignment on metrics and reporting. What do they measure? How do they report progress? How do they optimize based on data? Agencies focused on vanity metrics (followers, impressions) rather than business outcomes (conversions, retention, qualified leads) optimize for the wrong things.

Talk to references, but ask better questions. Don’t just ask if clients were satisfied. Ask what specific results the agency delivered, what didn’t work and how the agency handled it, how responsive they were to changing needs, and whether clients would hire them again for their next project.

Red Flags That Signal Poor Agency Fit

Certain patterns predict agency relationships that waste money and time.

Guaranteeing specific results (token price, follower counts, media placements) shows either dishonesty or inexperience. Web3 marketing involves too many variables for guarantees. Good agencies commit to process and effort, not outcomes they can’t control.

Lack of questions about your project signals they’re pitching templates, not custom strategy. Agencies should interrogate your technology, audience, competitors, and goals before proposing anything.

Pressure to sign long contracts without trial periods indicates low confidence in their ability to deliver. Confident agencies offer 1-3 month initial engagements that prove value before long-term commitments.

Vague or changing pricing structures create budget uncertainty. Clear, transparent pricing with defined scopes shows professional operations.

Poor communication during sales process predicts poor communication during engagement. If they’re slow to respond or unclear before you’re a client, it gets worse after you sign.

One-size-fits-all packages ignore project-specific needs. DeFi protocols, NFT projects, and Layer-1 blockchains require different approaches. Generic packages deliver generic results.

Structuring Agency Relationships for Success

How you work with agencies matters as much as which agency you choose.

Start with defined projects and clear scopes. “Handle all our marketing” is too broad. “Execute 90-day launch campaign including PR, community building, and influencer partnerships” creates clear accountability.

Establish concrete success metrics upfront. What does good performance look like? How will you measure it? What data will you track? Agreement on metrics prevents later disputes about whether agencies delivered value.

Build regular communication cadence. Weekly check-ins for active campaigns. Monthly strategic reviews. Quarterly planning sessions. Consistent communication prevents surprises and keeps everyone aligned.

Give agencies what they need to succeed. Access to your team for questions and approvals. Clear brand guidelines and messaging. Reasonable response times on requests. Product updates that affect messaging. Agencies can’t execute effectively if you’re unresponsive or unclear.

Treat agencies as partners, not vendors. Good agencies bring strategic insight and challenge your assumptions. Being defensive or dictatorial kills valuable input. The best results come from collaborative relationships where both sides contribute thinking.

Plan transition paths. If you’re using agencies as interim solution before building in-house, be transparent about that. Good agencies help set you up for successful transition rather than creating dependency.

The Bond Finance Perspective

We’ve worked with 200+ Web3 projects in various configurations—as their primary growth partner, as specialists handling specific functions, and as advisors helping them build in-house teams.

What we’ve learned: there’s no universal right answer. Project stage, resources, capabilities, and goals determine optimal structure.

Early-stage projects usually benefit from agency partnerships. They need sophisticated execution immediately but lack resources for full teams. We help them build momentum, validate strategies, and establish market presence while they focus on product development.

Growth-stage projects often need hybrid approaches. They hire strategic leaders in-house and partner with specialists for execution. We work alongside their teams, bringing expertise in areas like PR or influencer marketing where we have proven relationships and processes.

Established projects sometimes hire us for specific campaigns or initiatives rather than ongoing work. Token launches, major partnerships, market expansions—defined projects where our experience and network provide immediate value.

What matters most isn’t whether you hire in-house or work with agencies. It’s whether your growth infrastructure—however structured—delivers results efficiently. We’ve seen projects waste money with bad agencies and waste money with poorly structured in-house teams. Structure follows strategy, not the other way around.

When founders ask us whether they should work with us or hire in-house, we ask about their timeline, budget, current capabilities, and what success looks like. Sometimes we recommend they hire in-house. Sometimes we suggest starting with agencies and transitioning later. The right answer depends on their specific situation.

Making Your Decision

Consider these factors when deciding how to structure your Web3 marketing.

Your timeline to results. If you need execution in weeks, agencies. If you have 6+ months, in-house might work.

Your budget reality. Under $15,000 monthly makes building comprehensive in-house teams difficult. Agencies provide better value at that scale.

Your current capabilities. If you have experienced marketing leadership but need execution bandwidth, agencies supplement well. If you lack strategic expertise, hiring in-house without that foundation wastes money.

Your project stage. Pre-launch and early growth usually benefit from agencies. Established projects with proven models can justify in-house investment.

Your category complexity. Highly regulated areas or projects with unique compliance needs might require in-house control. Standard DeFi or NFT projects work fine with agencies.

Your long-term plans. Building multiple products over years justifies permanent capability. Single-product projects often don’t need full internal teams.

Be honest about these factors rather than making decisions based on what you think you “should” do. The right structure for your competitor might be wrong for you.

Start With Strategy, Not Structure

Most founders approach this backwards. They decide “we need an agency” or “we should hire in-house,” then figure out strategy.

Start with strategy. What are you trying to accomplish? What does success look like? What capabilities do you need? What timeline matters? What’s your realistic budget?

Then structure your team to execute that strategy efficiently. Maybe that’s all in-house. Maybe it’s all agency. Usually it’s some combination.

Ready to figure out the right growth structure for your project?

Contact Bond Finance to discuss your situation honestly. We’ll help you think through whether agencies, in-house, or hybrid makes sense—even if that means recommending you build internal capability instead of working with us.

Get Started