Web agencies: full service vs. specialized agencies

The term full-service agency has long been in inflationary use in the industry. However, as with all buzzwords, some clients and almost every agency have their own definition. A full-service offer is always a compromise. In this article, you will find out when, why and when you cannot make this compromise.

(Reading time: 6 minutes – English version here)

Full service?

The term “full-service agency” describes the ability of a web agency to provide all the services a customer needs. In the early days of commercial web use, it was justified for a while. Back then, it was all about creating a first website. In other words, to reconcile design, content and technical implementation. Whereas the customer had previously had to work with an advertising agency on the graphic aspects, a technical (IT) agency was used to create the site. The disadvantage for the client was that he had to negotiate and coordinate with two agencies. With a full-service provider, he was able to obtain both from a single source, which was of course advantageous.

The range of internet services has increased radically since then. While websites were mainly created manually back then, today we have a multitude of CMSs, each with their own special advantages and disadvantages. Completely new disciplines such as SEO, SEA, eCommerce, social media and newsletter marketing have been added. And each of these disciplines requires a huge amount of know-how. The full-service requirement has become increasingly difficult to fulfill.

For a long time, I was an advocate of full-service offers, simply because they were very simple for the customer. Over the years and with the development of the industry, however, I had to realize that a full-service offering is practically no longer feasible from an agency perspective. Why? Quite simply. Many employees are needed to provide services of sufficient quality. A simple calculation: Let’s say an agency provides

– Strategic consulting (min. 3 people)
– Conception (min. 4)
– Graphic implementation (min. 3)
– UX /CX (min 3)
– Project management (min. 4)
– Architects (min. 3)
– 3 Dev teams (min. 5 each)
– Testing / QA (min. 2)
– Support (min. 5)
– Content / Editorial (min. 3)
– SEA/SEO (min. 3)
– Newsletter (min. 2)
– DevOps (min. 3)
– Overhead (Management/Administration min 4)
– Marketing/Business Development (min 2)

The minimum staff requirement is therefore around 60 employees. However, this can only support 2 products (e.g. a content management and an eCommerce solution) that are based on the same technology (e.g. PHP or Java). If additional products or even several technologies are added, the personnel requirements quickly multiply. Agency representatives will argue that it would probably be possible with far fewer staff, as certain functions could be carried out by a single person. Popular examples include support and dev, sales and management, project management and conception, architects and dev, content and support. Of course this works and is common practice. However, as soon as employees fall ill, there is a high fluctuation rate and/or projects go wrong, such organizations compensate either via the quality of work or via the employees or both. In concrete terms, this means that the project results are of poorer quality and employees have to work overtime. Very few agencies actually bear the costs of an overstaffed organization themselves.

Today, a genuine full-service agency for medium-sized clients must employ at least 100 people in order to be able to work to a high standard (in all areas), keep pace with technological and methodological developments and be a reliable and stable partner for its clients.

Is every web agency with fewer employees now dubious?

That would be a presumptuous assumption. However, if the agency offers the full range of services and provides them itself, then yes, I think that is dubious. Fortunately, practically no agency does this and those that try usually disappear again soon. The smaller agencies that advertise as “full service” today often only offer full service in one segment (e.g. CMS or eCommerce with one product) and refer clients to partners or competitors as soon as they ask for services in another discipline. They are therefore specialized to a certain extent and interpret the term “full service” to refer to the sub-segment in which they are active.

From the client’s point of view: when full-service agencies, when specialized agencies?

The following graphic shows various decision criteria.

The most decisive factors are certainly the client’s resources and technical expertise. If this is available, the use of specialized agencies tends to make more sense. This is because specialized agencies increase the quality of the project result, as specialists have more know-how. Of course, this advantage also comes at a price. Specialized agencies generally charge higher daily rates.

We are also increasingly seeing service providers providing project management, controlling and management for web projects. I think this is a good way to strengthen the internal organization and make projects more secure. However, it is illusory that the customer can also be delegated the role of product and/or project owner.