The in-housing landscape is a big threat for agencies.

Some people I have spoken to recently have said to me "well, I am sure the pendulum will just swing back again...".

I don't agree (and I have reasons why).

As an ex-agency owner myself I feel a duty of care to share insights on this new creative landscape from my Inside Out® Community and will be talking to Lucy Mann on her podcast in a couple of months.

Here is what I am seeing....

I don't agree on churn being an in-house gig or transformational projects only being able to be delivered by agencies (a discussion on Linkedin here). It is just not what I am seeing.

• In-house creative leaders are understanding how to change/influence the CEO.

• Agency peeps are fast moving to in-house roles so they know what is behind the 'smoke and mirrors' - agency peeps, how do you sell to people who know you better than you know yourself?

• There is still a need for agency but with a radically different format and attitude than before.

• Churn is quickly become an 'AIi gig' which in turn leaves in-house creative teams time to play a more powerful role.

The industry conversation is very myopic around in-house agencies and marketing but that is also not the full picture of the in-house landscape, the full creative needs of a business and the opportunities. If you an agency owner forming an opinion by reading agency press only then you are missing the bigger picture.

If I had an agency now I would be getting 'spike-y' on something that wasn't executional. Asking questions like “what deep area of expertise can I have/want to have?”.

And then “how can I make us easy to buy?".