Working Together
Contents
Most budgets carry a web or marketing-ops hire as a single line: “$110k.” It’s a tidy number, and it’s wrong — not because salaries are higher than that, but because salary is only the starting point of what that hire actually costs you. The real figure for a $110k hire lands closer to $140k once everything is on the ledger, and the gap is worth understanding before you commit to it.
This isn’t an argument against hiring in-house. Sometimes it’s exactly right. It’s an argument for running the full math first.
The sticker-price illusion
“$110k salary” is the number you negotiate. It is not the number you pay. Across the market, the fully loaded cost of an employee — salary plus everything required to employ them — typically runs 1.25 to 1.4 times the base salary. For a $110k developer, that alone puts you in the $138k–$154k range before you account for the cost of finding them or the weeks before they’re productive.
The reason the sticker price sticks is that the rest of the cost is scattered across other budgets — benefits, payroll, recruiting, lost time — so no one ever adds it up in one place. Here’s that ledger.
The real ledger
- Benefits & payroll taxes. Employer payroll taxes run roughly 9–12% of base in most of the country (higher in some states), and that’s before health, dental, vision, a 401(k) match, and disability. Together these commonly add 20–30% on top of salary.
- Recruiting. If you use an external recruiter, direct-hire fees typically run 18–25% of first-year base (some run to 30%). Even self-sourced, the average cost-per-hire for a developer in 2026 is reported north of $28,000 once you count job ads, screening time, and management hours.
- Ramp time. A new hire is rarely fully productive on day one. Two to three months of learning your stack, your clients, and your processes is normal — salary you pay for output you don’t yet get.
- Management overhead. Someone has to onboard, direct, review, and unblock them. That time is real and usually comes off your most senior people.
- Idle time. This is the quiet one. Work is lumpy. In the weeks between projects, you pay full salary for partial utilization — and unlike a contractor, you can’t switch that cost off.
Stack those on a $110k base and ~$140k all-in is a conservative landing spot, not a scare number.
The coverage problem one hire can’t solve
Even at $140k, you’ve bought one skill set. Modern technical marketing isn’t one skill — it’s development, CRM integration, SEO, AEO, analytics and attribution, design, and increasingly e-commerce. No single person is genuinely strong across all of those. So the honest options are to hire one person and accept gaps, or hire two and double the fixed cost.
That’s the structural reason the “$110k hire” so often quietly becomes a $140k hire with holes in it. The bill goes up and the coverage still isn’t complete.
Three ways to get the work done, compared honestly
| Option | Strengths | Trade-offs |
|---|---|---|
| Freelancer | Cheapest hourly rate; flexible; no benefits or payroll burden. | Bus factor of one — if they’re sick, busy, or gone, you stall. Usually covers one or two of the skills you need, not all. |
| Traditional agency | Full team, broad capability, accountable. | You also fund account managers, decks, and longer timelines — a 12-week wrapper on an 8-week job. Higher cost per unit of actual build. |
| Productized subscription | Flat monthly fee, full-stack coverage, one accountable partner, pause when your pipeline is quiet. | You work through a queue, not a panic button — great for steady throughput, less suited to true same-day emergencies. |
None of these is universally “best.” The right one depends on how lumpy your needs are and how much fixed cost you want to carry.
When hiring in-house IS the right call
To be fair about it: if you have a continuous, full-time pipeline of one kind of work, an in-house specialist who lives inside your business and culture is hard to beat. Deep institutional knowledge, instant availability, and full alignment are real advantages. If you can keep that person genuinely busy and you only need their one skill, hiring is often the correct answer — just go in with the ~$140k number, not the $110k one.
The case weakens when your needs are variable, span multiple skills, or come in bursts. That’s where paying a fixed full-time cost for part-time, single-skill output stops making sense.
The subscription math
A productized subscription is built for exactly that variable, multi-skill reality. You get senior, full-stack execution — dev, CRM, SEO, AEO, analytics, design — for one flat monthly fee, with no benefits, no recruiting fee, no ramp cost, and no idle time. When your pipeline goes quiet, you pause it; when it picks up, you turn it back on. You’re not buying a person’s hours and the overhead attached to them. You’re buying output, switched on only when you need it.
The question, then, isn’t really “can I afford a hire?” It’s “why am I paying full-time fixed cost — benefits, recruiting, idle weeks — for work that arrives in bursts and needs more than one skill?”
Run the math
What your next hire really costs
Adjust the numbers for your situation. Defaults reflect a $110k developer.
- Fully-loaded salary / year
- $143,000
- + First-year recruiting & ramp
- $30,000
- First-year in-house cost
- $173,000
- Subscription / year
- $59,940
First-year savings
$113,060
then $83,060 / year ongoing
Book a 15-minute call
Estimate only. Figures are directional ranges, not a quote or guaranteed savings.