You've had enough of agencies. The Google Ads reports don't make sense, your cost per lead keeps climbing, and you're starting to think the only way to get real control over your personal injury marketing is to bring it in-house.
So you start looking for that perfect marketing manager. Someone who understands PI law. Someone who can handle everything. Someone who actually cares about your firm because they're on the payroll.
The logic makes sense. If marketing is this important to growth, shouldn't you control it directly rather than outsourcing to people who work with your competitors too?
But there's a gap between how this looks on paper and how it plays out in reality. I've watched enough firms go through this cycle to see the pattern clearly now. The timeline is almost always the same, and the outcome rarely matches what was promised in the job interview.
Key Takeaways
- Hiring an internal marketing manager adds significant monthly overhead before any marketing execution begins
- Most PI firms end up still needing external specialists even with an internal hire
- The "one person does everything" model typically means surface-level execution across Google Ads, SEO, intake optimisation, and creative
- Deep expertise across multiple PI marketing channels is rare at typical marketing manager salary ranges
- Hybrid models require internal hires with genuine technical depth, which is expensive and hard to find
- Focused execution in 1-2 channels often delivers better ROI than spreading resources across all channels
- Building a real marketing team requires multiple specialists, not one coordinator
There's an interesting discussion on this topic where a law firm partner asked whether they should bring marketing in-house after agency disappointment. The most upvoted response? "You need multiple specialists working on different channels. Agencies have that. One internal person doesn't." The thread reveals a pattern - firms that tried the internal route often found they underestimated both the cost and complexity.
Can One Marketing Manager Really Handle Your PI Marketing?
The True Cost of Hiring a Marketing Manager for Your PI Firm
When firms start looking for marketing managers, the job descriptions tend to follow a pattern: run Google Ads, manage SEO, oversee creative, optimise intake, build landing pages, manage analytics, coordinate agencies.
It sounds reasonable. Other businesses have marketing managers who handle multiple channels. Why should PI firms be different?
The challenge isn't whether marketing managers exist. It's whether one person can have genuine depth across all the channels PI marketing requires - at the salary most firms are budgeting.
Here's what I've observed: the specialists who can actually manage complex Google Ads campaigns for PI keywords bill around $150-200 per hour. SEO experts who understand the legal space are in the same range. Intake conversion specialists command similar rates.
When you hire one person to handle all of it at a typical marketing manager salary, you're not getting that level of expertise in each area. You're getting someone who understands the concepts but lacks the depth to execute at a high level across every channel.
That's not a criticism of the hire. It's just reality. Surface-level knowledge across five areas doesn't deliver the same results as deep expertise in the areas that matter most.
The salary is just the starting point.
Let's say you hire someone with PI marketing experience. You're covering their salary, benefits, and overhead before any actual marketing happens.
But that manager still needs resources to execute. They can't be an expert in everything, so you're typically adding:
- Google Ads agency or specialist
- SEO agency for competitive PI markets
- Intake conversion support
- Creative for video ads
- Landing page development
- Call tracking and analytics
Each piece requires either an external specialist or additional internal hire.
What starts as "bringing marketing in-house for better control" often becomes a larger total expense than the agency relationship you left - with the added complexity of coordinating multiple vendors who aren't necessarily working as an integrated system.
The real cost isn't just financial. It's the strategic disconnect that happens when specialists execute in silos without proper integration.
Your Google Ads campaigns target keywords your intake team struggles to convert. Your SEO builds authority in practice areas that don't align with your growth strategy. Your creative drives clicks to landing pages that aren't optimised for conversion.
Why One Marketing Manager Can't Excel at PI Marketing Across Every Channel
This isn't about finding someone smart enough. It's about the reality of how specialised PI marketing has become.
Think about what you're asking one person to master:
- Google Ads strategy for PI is its own discipline. You need to understand bidding strategies for keywords that cost $200+ per click. You need negative keyword management sophisticated enough to filter out soft tissue cases with no liability without blocking viable leads. You need conversion tracking that measures signed cases, not just form fills. You need to know when to use broad match modifier for "car accident lawyer" but exact match for "wrongful death attorney."
- PI-specific SEO requires deep knowledge of Google Business Profile optimisation, legal directory management, local search strategies, and content that complies with legal advertising rules while still ranking. You're competing against firms spending $50K+ per month on SEO alone.
- Intake conversion optimisation means understanding how to qualify leads in under 60 seconds, implementing speed-to-lead systems, training intake staff on objection handling, and tracking conversion rates from initial call to signed case.
- Creative direction for legal advertising means producing video ads that comply with state bar rules, testing different messaging angles, and understanding what actually moves the needle for PI case types.
- Analytics and attribution means setting up proper tracking from click to signed case, calculating true cost per signed case (not cost per lead), and building dashboards that actually tell you what's working.
The people who have deep expertise across all of these areas are rare. When they exist, they're typically commanding premium compensation or running their own operations.
What happens more often with generalist hires is surface-level knowledge that can create unintended consequences.
They might suggest adding broad match keywords to increase volume without fully understanding the budget implications for expensive PI keywords. They might resist removing form fields from landing pages without seeing the conversion data. They might deprioritise speed-to-lead initiatives without understanding the impact on case signing rates.
It's not about malicious intent. It's about the gap between general marketing knowledge and deep channel expertise in the PI space. That gap creates friction and sometimes costly mistakes.
What Actually Happens After You Hire a Marketing Manager for Your PI Firm
There's a pattern that tends to emerge. The specifics vary by firm, but the general arc is surprisingly consistent.
Month 1-2: Everyone's excited. The new marketing manager has fresh ideas. They're talking about "taking your PI marketing to the next level." Partners are happy there's someone internal to talk to about marketing.
Month 3-4: Implementation starts. New Google Ads campaigns. Website refresh. Updated intake scripts. It all sounds impressive in partner meetings.
Month 5-6: The cracks appear. Lead volume might be up, but signed cases aren't. Your cost per lead is higher than it was with the previous agency. Intake is complaining about lead quality. But the marketing manager has good explanations for why it's not working yet.
Month 7-8: Reality hits. The manager needs more budget. More Google Ads spend. An SEO agency. Better call tracking. A creative agency. You're now spending more than you ever did with your previous agency, and you still can't tell what your cost per signed case is.
Month 9-12: You're stuck. You've invested too much to back out now. The manager is a full-time employee. You've built relationships with all these new vendors. Politically, it's a nightmare to admit this was a mistake.
Or you quietly start looking for a new PI marketing agency while the marketing manager starts updating their CV.
The pattern is consistent enough that you'll see the same timeline discussed in law firm owner forums. The specifics vary, but the arc doesn't.
Does Hiring a Marketing Manager to Oversee PI Marketing Agencies Work?
Hybrid Approach in PI Marketing
The hybrid approach sounds practical: hire an internal strategist to manage external specialists.
In theory, this combines the best of both. You get someone internal who understands your firm, plus you get specialist execution from agencies who know their specific channels.
The challenge shows up in the execution.
If your internal hire has strong branding or general marketing background but limited technical depth in PI marketing channels, they can struggle to evaluate specialist recommendations.
When your Google Ads specialist recommends sophisticated negative keyword strategies to filter low-quality leads, it requires understanding of PI keyword economics to evaluate properly.
When your landing page expert suggests reducing form fields to improve conversion, it requires knowing the trade-off between information gathering and conversion rates.
When your intake consultant wants to implement strict speed-to-lead tracking, it requires understanding why response time matters for case signing rates.
Without that depth, internal coordinators sometimes optimise for what looks good in partner presentations rather than what delivers results.
The agencies get frustrated when their strategic recommendations get blocked. The firm gets frustrated when results don't improve. The internal person becomes a filter rather than a force multiplier.
For hybrid to work well, your internal person needs genuine PI marketing expertise. Not just marketing knowledge, but specific understanding of legal marketing channels and dynamics.
That expertise level typically commands significantly higher compensation and is harder to find in the market.
Better Than In-House: The Specialist PI Marketing Agency Approach
What seems to work better for most PI firms isn't spreading resources thin across every possible channel. It's focused execution where it matters most.
Instead of trying to run Google Ads, SEO, social, creative, and intake optimisation all at once with limited budget for each, consider what happens when you concentrate resources.
For most PI firms, the channels that actually drive signed cases are Google Ads, local SEO, or both. Rarely is it everything at once.
Finding a specialist who genuinely understands PI marketing for your primary channel makes a difference. Not a generalist agency juggling criminal defense, family law, and PI. Someone focused on personal injury specifically.
The budget question matters too.
A Google Ads specialist working with limited budget on expensive PI keywords has less room to test and optimise. SEO in competitive legal markets needs sustained investment before you see movement.
What you measure determines what you optimise for. Cost per signed case tells you a different story than cost per lead. Tracking from click to consultation to signed case shows you where the system breaks down.
The firms that seem to be growing consistently aren't usually the ones trying to do ten things at a surface level. They're excellent at the one or two things that drive their case volume.
Some run Google Ads with proper negative keyword management, conversion tracking for signed cases, and landing pages built for specific case types. Others focus on local SEO with systematic Google Business Profile management and review generation that actually works.
It's not about being everywhere. It's about being excellent where it matters.
When Does In-House Marketing Actually Make Sense for PI Firms?
In-house isn't wrong for every firm. But it works in specific situations.
You're building an actual marketing department, not hiring one person. A real team with specialists for Google Ads, SEO, intake conversion, creative, and analytics. Each person focused on their area of expertise.
Your marketing volume and case flow justify dedicated internal resources. You're operating at a scale where full-time specialists make economic sense.
You're willing to invest in genuine expertise for each role, not looking for a single coordinator to handle everything.
You understand that even with internal people, you'll outsource specialised technical work. Internal teams typically handle strategy and coordination while external partners manage things like technical SEO implementation, creative production, and advanced tracking.
For most PI firms, that level of scale isn't realistic yet. The case volume doesn't support it, and the marketing budget doesn't justify building an entire department.
What most firms actually need is focused specialist execution in the channel or two that drives their growth, not a full internal department.
Agency vs In-House: How PI Firms Should Make This Decision
If you're frustrated with your current PI marketing agency, don't default to "we should bring this in-house."
Start by asking the right questions.
Which channel is actually driving our signed cases?
Not which channel is driving traffic or phone calls. Signed cases. For most PI firms, it's Google Ads or local SEO, sometimes both. Rarely social media. Rarely content marketing.
Do we have enough budget to do that channel properly?
A Google Ads specialist can't work miracles with $3K per month when your keywords cost $200+ per click. An SEO expert needs 6-12 months of consistent investment minimum. If your budget is too small, more channels won't help.
Can we measure cost per signed case accurately?
If you can't track from click to consultation to signed case, you're flying blind whether you go agency or in-house. Fix measurement first.
Are we giving the agency enough time and budget to optimise?
Most PI marketing channels need 4-6 months minimum before you'll see meaningful improvement. If you're switching agencies every 6 months, the problem isn't the agency.
If you can't answer these questions clearly, hiring an internal marketing manager won't solve your problem. You'll just create a more expensive version of the same problem.
What you actually need is clarity on what success looks like (cost per signed case, not vanity metrics), a specialist who can deliver it, and proper measurement so you know what's working.
That might be a focused PI marketing agency. It might be a specialist consultant for one channel. It might be a hybrid model if you can afford someone with genuine depth.
But it's almost never hiring a generalist marketing manager and hoping they can master Google Ads, SEO, intake, creative, and analytics all at once.
Why PI Firms Really Want to Hire Marketing Managers
When you dig into the motivation behind bringing marketing in-house, it's often less about the marketing itself and more about control, visibility, and accountability.
Firms want someone they can talk to directly. Agency reports can feel opaque. Having someone in the office who you can walk over to and ask "what's actually happening with our Google Ads?" sounds appealing.
There's a desire for accountability too. When spend is high but signed cases aren't following, it's frustrating not having someone directly responsible you can address it with.
And there's the visibility factor. Monthly agency reports show metrics, but they don't always show the day-to-day work. Having internal marketing means seeing what's happening in real-time.
These are all legitimate frustrations. The question is whether hiring an internal generalist actually solves them.
What often happens: less agency transparency becomes more internal politics. Your marketing person needs to justify their role, so activity gets prioritised over outcomes.
Unclear agency reporting becomes different dashboards that might track the wrong things. Leads instead of signed cases. Traffic instead of conversion rates.
The accountability you wanted gets complicated by internal dynamics. When results don't improve, it's harder to address it with a full-time employee than with an agency relationship.
What usually solves these frustrations better than restructuring everything: clearer metrics, better communication rhythms with your current partners, and tracking systems that show the path from spend to signed cases.
An agency relationship where cost per signed case is the primary metric. Monthly reviews focused on "we spent X and signed Y cases" rather than traffic and impressions.
Tracking that shows you where the breakdown happens when something isn't working. So you can see if it's the ads, the landing page, intake speed, or qualification.
Clear ownership. Your agency should own specific outcomes, not just deliver activity.
Making the In-House vs Agency Decision for Your PI Firm
Before posting that job listing, it helps to honestly assess where you are.
Can you build and support an actual marketing team with multiple specialists? If not, one person will struggle to deliver across all channels.
Do you know which 1-2 channels currently drive most of your signed cases? If not, that's worth figuring out before making any big changes.
Can you track cost per signed case accurately across your marketing efforts? Without proper measurement, neither in-house nor agency will succeed.
Are you giving your current approach enough time to optimise? Most marketing channels need several months of consistent effort before showing meaningful results.
If you're frustrated with your current situation, the answer might not be bringing everything in-house. It might be getting clearer on what success looks like and finding specialists who can deliver it.
That could be a focused agency partnership. It could be a specialist consultant for your primary channel. It could be a hybrid model if you can find someone with real depth to manage it.
What it probably isn't: hiring a generalist and expecting them to master every aspect of PI marketing simultaneously.
The firms that seem to grow consistently aren't necessarily the ones with the largest internal teams. They're often the ones with focused specialist execution in the channels that matter, proper measurement systems, and clear accountability for outcomes.
