What you need to know: 

• Trinity P3 Managing Director Nathan Hodges is the latest to dispute research by the In House Agency Council and Kantar. The findings, published in November but bounced off agency bosses earlier this month by Mi3, suggest in-housing's steep growth trajectory continues.
• The primary bone of contention is IHAC's suggestion that work by volume is now a 70:30 split in favour of in house teams – a complete ratio reversal in just two years.
• Hodges said the findings don't reflect the trends that Trinity P3 has observed in market. The in-housing trend is undeniable, per Hodges, but workload is flowing both ways between external and in-house agencies. 
• He claimed IHAC's paper relies on the subjective perceptions of the sample of marketers surveyed. The results, said Hodges, could also be skewed by a broad definition of in-house agencies encompassing “everything from a proper, fully-fledged in-house operation (like Endeavour Group) right down to the one person in the marketing team, working part-time from home, managing social media”.
• IHAC chair Chris Maxwell defended the findings and said any suggestion that marketers aren't in a position to make an accurate judgement of their own budgets and workloads is disrespectful. 
• Maxwell said IHAC's research follows a similar survey style method to most other market research. Kantar, he said "would rightly take offence at these assertions".

Trinity P3 Managing Director Nathan Hodges has questioned both the figures and research methodology used by the In-House Agency Council (IHAC) that suggest marketers are now handing much more work to their in-house teams than to agencies. 

Key findings of IHAC's latest report, based on a survey of marketers and produced in conjunction with Kantar, were that in-housing continues to grow (78 per cent of brands now operating an in-house agency) and that the ratio of work done by agencies versus in-house teams had flipped in just two years to 70 per cent now being undertaken by in-house teams. Agency bosses thought that ratio was overcooked. Hodges likewise said some of IHAC's figures don't reflect what the pitch consultancy is seeing in market.

He claimed the report was a “speculative piece of research” based on a survey of respondents that are “not at all able” to make a judgement on the split of workload.

The methodology used by IHAC and Kantar, per the report, was a 10-minute online survey conducted across a sample of 142 Australian marketers at junior, mid and senior levels, that worked with both in-house and external agencies. The sample was distributed between an online panel (100 participants) and 42 anonymous responses from IHAC members.

Hodges conceded that there are changes to what marketers are doing in-house, “we observe that all the time”, he told Mi3, but countered that while there’s “lots of traffic going towards in-house agencies”, there’s also plenty coming the other way.

He took issue with the research methodology, particularly the questions IHAC asked its respondents about in-house agency workload, specifically:

Q10: Does your company also work with external agencies for advertising, media or other marcoms?

Q11: Thinking about all the work your company does both in-house and with external agencies, approximately what percentage of the work is done in-house and what percentage is done by external agencies?

These questions, he said, speak only to the perceptions of the respondents, and therefore don’t differentiate between the volume and the value of the work.

“It's just laughable to claim, based on such light evidence, that our industry is seeing a sudden ’complete flip’ of workload across the industry in favour of in-house agencies,” per Hodges.

He also took issue with the breadth of IHAC and Kantar’s definition of an in-house agency, echoing the concerns raised by Tumbleturn's Jen Davidson.

The definition, according to IHAC’s report, covers a “department, group, or person that has responsibilities that typically are performed by an external advertising, media or other marcom agency”. Per Maxwell, it reflects the standard definition that it currently used in the US for the purpose of enabling like-for-like comparison.

The concern for Hodges is that definition could encompass “everything from a proper, fully-fledged in-house operation (like Endeavour Group) right down to one person in the marketing team, working part-time from home, managing social media”. And it does, though the bulk tends to sit somewhere in the middle.

According to IHAC’s paper, only 21 per cent of in-house agencies had fewer than five employees, with 49 per cent sitting in the five to 25 range, and 27 per cent with upwards of 25 employees. A further 5 per cent sat in the 51-100 employee range.

Hodges is not the only one with concerns over the implications of IHAC's latest research. Half Dome’s Joe Frazer and Hard Hat's Dan Monheit were both of the view that marketers’ perceptions may have been skewed by their own 'busyness'. Ogilvy’s Sally Kissane said the volume of work moving in-house suggested by IHAC "is not reflective of anything we are experiencing".

IHAC chair Chris Maxwell has already responded to those criticisms, stating that Kantar’s sample comprised general marketers “who would be briefing” either an in-house or external agency, rather than a member of the in-house team.

“I'd expect this would negate your question about 'busyness' skewing the view, as the respondent has a perspective on both the in-house and external agency and where they're choosing to send the work. So, it should be objective,” he stated.

Maxwell asserted that even “claimed data” is still “telling” of how marketers are perceiving their in-house agencies, speaking to a “growing trust” in increasingly capable in-house agency teams.

But Hodges disagreed. “That's not data on which anyone can start to base a conversation,” he said.

“We can all smell the smoke, and we can see the mirrors”, added Hodges. “I don’t mind [IHAC] raising the point, they’ve got an agenda, they’ve got a point of view, they’ve got a commercial interest … [but] base it on actual evidence that stands up.”

Maxwell stands by the research. He suggested Hodge’s criticisms disrespect both the research industry and marketers.

“Questioning whether marketers are in a position to accurately make a judgement on their own budgets and workload suggests a lack of respect for the profession," he responded, pointing out that the bulk of market research is conducted using similar survey-style methodologies.

“Assessing the responses as 'only marketer's perspectives' is disrespectful to the research industry and to the marketing professionals who took the time to respond,” Maxwell added. “Kantar is one of the world's most credible and respected research firms, which is why we work with them. I think they would rightly take offence at these assertions."