Latest / The CMO Podcast with Fexingo: Marketing Leadership, Budgets, and Executive Strategy / Why CMOs Are Building In-House Influencer Programs
Transcript
- Lucas: So you know how for years the standard playbook for influencer marketing was basically — find an agency, pay them a retainer, they manage the relationships, and you hope the math works out. Luna: Right. And often it kind of didn't. The agency takes a cut, you lose direct contact with creators, and the content can feel a bit generic. Lucas: Exactly. Well, I've been noticing a shift over the past eighteen months or so. More CMOs are bringing influencer management in-house. Not just the strategy — the actual relationships, the payments, the creative briefs. They're building their own mini-creator networks. Luna: That's a big operational change. Isn't it more work? Why would a CMO want to add headcount for something an agency was already handling? Lucas: Great question. Let me give you a concrete example. There's a mid-size DTC brand — I'm not going to name them because the numbers are still private — but they were spending about $3 million annually on influencer marketing through three different agencies. They did a full audit and realized they were losing roughly forty percent of that budget to agency fees, markups, and inefficiencies. So they decided to bring it all in-house. They hired five people — a head of creator partnerships, two creator account managers, a content strategist, and a part-time legal person for contracts. Total annual cost: about $650,000. Luna: That's a huge difference. So they saved over two million dollars just by cutting out the middlemen? Lucas: They saved about one point two million net, because some costs shifted. But yes. And the bigger win wasn't just the cost savings — it was speed. They could brief a creator on a Monday and have content live by Wednesday. With the agencies, the average turnaround was three weeks. Luna: Okay, that's compelling. But isn't there a downside? Agencies have relationships with hundreds of creators. A five-person team can't match that scale. Lucas: That's the trade-off. You lose breadth, but you gain depth. The brands that are doing this well aren't trying to work with a thousand micro-influencers. They're focused on maybe fifty to a hundred core creators who genuinely love the product. And because the team knows them personally — they talk to them every week — the content is more authentic. There's less of that 'paid partnership' feel. Luna: So it's a quality over quantity move. Which brands are doing this that we can point to? Lucas: Glossier is probably the most famous example. They've always treated their influencer relationships as an extension of their community team. They don't outsource. Their entire influencer program is run by a small internal crew who know the creators by name. Duolingo is another one — their TikTok strategy is famously managed in-house by a tiny team that gives creators a lot of creative freedom. They're not going through an agency. Luna: And those are both brands that have really distinct, authentic voices. So the in-house model seems to work best when the brand has a clear identity. Lucas: Exactly. If your brand voice is muddled, an agency might actually help. But if you know who you are, owning those relationships lets you speak consistently. There's also a technology angle here. A few CMOs I've talked to are using AI tools to manage creator relationships at scale — things like automated brief generation, performance tracking, and payment processing. That makes the in-house model feasible for bigger programs. Luna: I've seen some platforms that do that. Like, they help you track which creators are actually driving sales, not just likes. Lucas: Right. And that's the other piece — measurement. When you own the relationships, you can also own the data. You're not relying on the agency's dashboard. You know exactly which creator drove how many conversions, at what cost per acquisition. That transparency is a big reason CMOs are making the switch. Luna: So what does the in-house structure actually look like? You mentioned five people for a mid-size brand. Is that typical? Lucas: From what I'm seeing, it varies. A brand spending a million or less on influencer marketing might just have one dedicated person plus support from the social media team. A bigger brand spending five million plus might have a team of eight to twelve. Some are even creating a new role — 'creator-in-residence'. That's someone who's essentially an internal influencer, making content full-time for the brand's own channels. Luna: That's interesting — like a resident creator who lives the brand. I've seen a few job postings for that role. It's like a hybrid between a content creator and a brand ambassador. Lucas: Exactly. And it's cheaper than paying an external influencer per post. You give them a salary, maybe some equity, and they produce content that feels native because they're actually part of the company. Some brands are even having their creator-in-residence appear in ads and speak at events. Luna: So it's almost like bringing talent in-house the way sports teams do. You develop your own stars instead of renting them. Lucas: That's a great analogy. And the economics work if you can keep them. The average tenure of an influencer agency relationship is about six months. But an in-house creator might stay for two or three years. That consistency builds a much stronger association between the creator's personal brand and your product. Luna: What about the downside? I imagine some creators prefer working through agencies because they get more freedom or better rates. Lucas: That's real. Some top-tier creators won't work directly with brands — they have their own management. So you're not going to replace every influencer relationship. But for the middle tier — creators with fifty thousand to five hundred thousand followers — many are happy to work directly because they keep more of the money. They don't have to pay the agency's commission. Luna: So it's a win-win for both sides, at least for that segment. What about legal and compliance? That seems like a headache. Lucas: It is. That's why the team includes a part-time legal person or contracts with an outside counsel. You need clear briefs, disclosure language, and IP ownership terms. But it's manageable. And a lot of brands are using standardized contract templates now. The bigger risk is actually brand safety — when you work directly with creators, you're more exposed if they post something controversial. Agencies often have layers of vetting. Luna: So you need a solid vetting process. Background checks, social media audits, maybe even trial periods. Lucas: Exactly. The smartest brands I've seen do a sixty-day trial with new creators. Low commitment, see how the audience responds, check for any red flags. If it works, then they sign a longer agreement. That's a much lower-risk way to build the network. Luna: I'm curious — do you think this trend will continue, or is it a reaction to the inefficiencies of the agency model that will eventually correct itself? Lucas: I think it's structural. The agency model was built for a time when influencer marketing was new and brands didn't know how to do it. Now the knowledge is widespread. There are courses, tools, and case studies. It's similar to how brands brought digital advertising in-house ten years ago. Once the capability exists internally, the middleman gets squeezed. Luna: That makes sense. But agencies aren't going away entirely. They'll probably pivot to higher-value services like crisis management, global campaigns, or access to celebrity influencers. Lucas: Totally. The agencies that survive will be the ones that offer something the in-house team can't replicate — like exclusive access to A-list talent, or sophisticated cross-platform analytics. But the days of the generalist influencer agency charging a thirty percent markup on every post? Those are numbered. Luna: So if a CMO is listening and thinking about making this shift, what's the first step? Lucas: Audit your current spend. Figure out exactly what you're paying agencies and what you're getting for it. Then look at your top twenty creators — the ones who drive the most value — and see if they'd be open to working directly. If even half of them say yes, you've already got the nucleus of an in-house program. Then hire a head of creator partnerships to manage them. It doesn't have to be a big bang. Luna: And start small. Grow from there. That's a really practical takeaway. Lucas: And I'd add — measure everything from day one. Track cost per engagement, cost per conversion, and creator retention. Those numbers will tell you if the model is working. Luna: Honestly, if this episode sparked something you could actually use in your work, consider supporting the show. It keeps us ad-free and independent. There's a link at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Lucas: Yeah, we don't have sponsors, so that listener support really does make a difference. And we appreciate it. Luna: Back to the topic — one thing I wanted to ask. How does this in-house model work for global brands? If you're operating in ten countries, you can't have a team in every market. Lucas: Right. For global brands, the approach is usually a hybrid. You have a central in-house team that handles strategy and top-tier creators globally, but you partner with local micro-agencies in each market to manage regional creators. The central team sets the guidelines, approves the briefs, and tracks performance, but the local execution is outsourced. It's a way to keep control without losing local relevance. Luna: So the core team stays lean, and you use agencies as extensions rather than as the primary interface. That seems like a smart middle ground. Lucas: Exactly. And the technology piece helps there too. There are platforms now that let you manage creator relationships across time zones, currencies, and languages from a single dashboard. So even with a small central team, you can maintain visibility. Luna: I think the key theme here is ownership. CMOs want to own the relationship with their customers, and creators are a direct channel to that. Lucas: That's it. Ownership of data, ownership of relationships, ownership of brand voice. The in-house influencer model is really just the latest expression of a broader trend — brands wanting to control their own destiny instead of renting it from intermediaries. Luna: And it's working, at least for the brands that do it intentionally. It's not a magic bullet, but it's a strategic choice that more and more CMOs are making. Lucas: Right. And I suspect in two or three years, having an in-house creator team will be as normal as having an in-house social media team is today. It'll just be part of the standard marketing org chart. Luna: That feels like a safe prediction. I'll be curious to see if creator-in-residence becomes a common title. Lucas: It might. Either way, the relationship between brands and creators is getting closer. And that's probably good for everyone — except maybe the agencies that don't adapt.