PPC software automates rules such as bid changes and negation, but it does not choose a strategy and still needs someone to configure and review it. In-house is the cheapest option and the right one when somebody genuinely has the weekly hours. An agency earns its fee when spend is high enough that a few points of ACOS exceed the retainer, or when the weekly maintenance simply is not happening. Run the arithmetic on your own spend before deciding.
How do the three options compare?
Software executes rules quickly and consistently at a scale a person cannot match — adjusting hundreds of bids, applying negatives, acting on thresholds. That is real value on a large keyword set.
It does not decide which keywords matter, whether your break-even is right, or whether the listing is the actual problem. Rules applied to a badly structured account automate the wrong decisions faster.
| PPC software | In-house | Agency | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best when | A large keyword set needs fast, consistent rule execution | Someone genuinely has the weekly hours | Spend is high enough that a few ACOS points beat the retainer |
| Sets strategy | No — executes rules only | Yes, if the skill exists in-house | Yes |
| Main cost | Subscription plus configuration time | Time and weekly discipline | Retainer |
| Main risk | Automates the wrong decisions faster | The cadence lapsing | Paying a fee before spend justifies it |
What is the hidden cost of in-house?
The work is mostly disciplined weekly maintenance — search term review, negation, harvesting, bid adjustments. It is learnable, and most sellers can do it.
The failure mode is not incompetence, it is the cadence lapsing. An account maintained for two months then left alone for a quarter performs worse than one on a modest but unbroken routine. Be honest about whether the time exists.
Want this checked on your own account?
The free audit answers this question with your numbers instead of general rules — no Seller Central password needed.
Get my free audit