CFO decision guide
Agency versus in house. The model, with your numbers in it.
The question every CFO asks is whether $10,000 a month is worth it against hiring. The honest answer depends on the numbers you already have: the salary you would pay, your benefits and payroll load, the tools the hire would need, the time to hire and onboard them, and the revenue a qualified meeting is worth to your business. Put them in below. The model is a planning tool. Change every field to match your situation before the call.
The three real options.
In house
One marketing hire, sometimes two. You get control, institutional memory, and a person in the room every day. You also need enough scope and support for that person to succeed. One hire can own the work, and rarely brings deep capacity across website, content, search, paid media, reporting, and sales follow up at the same time. Hiring, onboarding, and building momentum take time. So does replacing knowledge if the person leaves before the system is documented.
Agency
A firm runs the work for a monthly fee. It can begin discovery and production sooner than a full hiring process, bring specialists into the work as needed, and give you a written operating plan and scorecard. You give up some day to day control. Results also depend on access, approvals, product clarity, sales follow up, and the firm's actual scope. Ask what roles are assigned, what work is included, and how success will be measured before signing.
Hybrid
One in house owner approves work quickly, with a firm running the production. This is how most ISOVERTIC engagements actually run. The in house person owns the commercial context, the relationship, and the agreed outcome. The firm owns the agreed output, reporting, and operating rhythm. It works best when the internal owner can make decisions, bring in subject matter experts, and give feedback from sales.
The fully loaded cost model.
Defaults are placeholders, not benchmarks. Change every field to your own numbers. Ad spend is excluded on both sides when you would spend the same amount either way. If the channel mix or media budget would differ, include that difference separately.
In house, 24 months, fully loaded
$516,000
$21,500 a month, fully loaded
Per productive month
$24,571
After 3 ramp months with no output
Qualified meetings a month needed to cover cost
5
In house, at $5,000 of expected revenue per meeting
The break even count divides monthly cost by deal value times close rate. It estimates the number of held, qualified meetings needed each month for the program to cover its cost at your close rate. For a more conservative view, use expected gross profit. If your gross margin is 60 percent, a meeting worth $5,000 in expected revenue is worth $3,000 in expected gross profit. The model does not replace attribution, sales acceptance, or pipeline review.
Break even against the tiers.
Each ISOVERTIC tier over 24 months at the 12 month term rate, beside the in house figure from your inputs. The term includes the $15,000 website, so the tier column is the whole operating scope in the agreement. Tier figures exclude ad spend and media. Quantum Leap starts at $25,000 and is scoped by brand. The comparison assumes equivalent work. Confirm the channels, deliverables, seniority, implementation work, tool costs, and internal management time included in each option before you use it as a decision.
| Option | Per month | 24 months | Against in house | Meetings a month to break even |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In house hire | $21,500 | $516,000 | Ground State | 5 |
| Ground State | $3,000 | $72,000 | $444,000 less | 1 |
| Excitation | $5,000 | $120,000 | $396,000 less | 1 |
| Amplification | $10,000 | $240,000 | $276,000 less | 2 |
| Quantum Leap (from) | $25,000 | $600,000 | $84,000 more | 5 |
Tier figures are the 12 month term rate from the pricing page, excluding ad spend and media. Quantum Leap is priced from $25,000 and scoped per brand.
When each option wins.
In house wins when
you can hire a proven operator for the work you need, give them enough budget and support, and allow time to build the system. If that person can set strategy, direct specialists, and work closely with sales, hiring may be the right long term investment.
Agency wins when
you need specialist capacity sooner than a full hiring cycle allows, your buyers need education before a sales conversation, or you need a clearer measurement and operating rhythm. Agree in writing on the meeting definition, the inputs each side owns, the reporting cadence, and the point at which performance will be reviewed.
Hybrid wins when
you already have one marketer. Keep them as the owner and put a senior team behind them. The Protocol training day exists to transfer the written instructions, the decision process, and the working system to that person.
The decision checklist.
- 01Write down what the function has to produce: sales accepted qualified meetings a month, qualified pipeline a quarter, or both.
- 02Name who owns that outcome on your side, whichever option you pick.
- 03Price the in house option over 24 months, including salary, benefits, payroll load, tools, recruiting, management time, and the ramp to useful output.
- 04Ask every agency for its meeting definition in writing, the roles assigned, the deliverables included, and the month it agrees to be judged against the agreed measures.
- 05Match the review window to your sales cycle. A four month cycle may show early commercial evidence by month six. An eighteen month cycle needs leading indicators and a cohort review before revenue is a fair judgment.
- 06Decide what happens at exit: who owns the accounts, content, tracking, sequences, data, and written instructions.
One page version
The agency versus in house checklist
The six questions above on one printable page, with room for your numbers. Email required.
What CFOs ask first
Because media spend is often paid either way. Including the same spend on both sides does not change the decision. If one option requires a different media budget, different channels, or outside production costs, include those differences. The model compares the operating cost of running marketing.
No. It is a placeholder, not a market benchmark. Use the salary you would need to pay for the role, in your location, with the experience and scope you require. Then add your actual benefits and payroll load, monthly tools, recruiting cost, and the time it will take to hire and build momentum.
Then compare the work, not only the monthly total. Ask whether the hire can produce and manage the same scope: positioning, website work, search, content, paid media, reporting, sales feedback, and the specialist work needed around them. A lower cost hire may be the right choice when the required scope is focused and the company can support them well.
Yes. That is one reason to document the system from the beginning. Before you start, agree on ownership of the website, accounts, analytics, content, campaign history, sequences, reporting, and written instructions. Protocol is designed to transfer the operating system to the internal owner when that is the right next step.
George Stoff, Founder and Lead Engineer
Full-stack engineer with more than 30 years building the systems companies sell through. He built the method Isovertic runs on and stays on every account as the standards owner and the escalation path. When search algorithms shift or a compliance question comes up, you get his engineering judgment. Day-to-day execution runs on the team he trained.
LinkedInKristen Coughlin, Chief Operating Officer
Trained molecular biologist. Ten years selling translational research products, then institutional operations at the Yale School of Medicine. She documented George's method, trained the team on it, and built the operation so the same system runs the same way on every account.
LinkedIn