You've asked three people whether you need an agency, and all three had something to sell you.
The freelancer said freelancers are best. The in-house recruiter said hire in-house. The agency said, obviously, hire an agency. Here's the version nobody's selling you.
In-house: full control, full cost.
A dedicated hire costs $50K–80K+ a year in salary alone, before tools or ad spend. That math only works once your ad spend is consistently $15K+/month. Below that, you're paying full-time wages for part-time work.
See what your ad spend actually supports →
Freelancer: cheaper, riskier.
Less than an agency, more attention than an agency spreads across dozens of accounts. The catch: quality swings wildly person to person, and if they vanish mid-campaign, you're stuck rebuilding from zero.
Agency: a team, not a person.
Someone on targeting, someone on creative, someone on reporting, for less than one in-house salary. You trade some exclusivity of attention for expertise one freelancer alone can't cover.
The real question isn't which is "best." It's which matches your stage right now.
- Testing an idea under $1K/month ad spend: freelancer or a flat-fee agency package
- Scaling a proven offer past $5K/month: agency, so you get a full team instead of one person's bandwidth
- Running $20K+/month with ads core to the business: in-house, so priorities never compete with other clients
Tell us your monthly spend. Get the honest answer for your stage →
"Agencies just want my spend to go up so they make more money."
Fair concern. It's exactly why flat-fee agencies exist. A flat fee removes that incentive entirely; a percentage-of-spend fee doesn't. Ask how they're paid before you sign anything. If they dodge the question, that's your answer.
We're flat-fee, not percentage-of-spend.
Our incentive is your result, not your budget climbing. One of our clients spent PKR 51,454.54 total and got 630 conversations at PKR 81.67 each. That's what an aligned incentive actually looks like in a real account.