When this topic matters
You have internal team but need capacity. Or have outsource but want more control over core activities.
Hybrid = part in-house, part external. Common model for scaling companies.
What happens in practice
Typical hybrid models: 1) Core team in-house, overflow outsource. 2) Enterprise in-house, SMB outsource. 3) New market test outsource, scale in-house. 4) Qualification outsource, closing in-house.
Key: clear division of who owns what and why.
Why it fails
Unclear boundaries: who qualifies, who closes? Who has which leads? Conflicts arise when ownership is not clear.
Inconsistent messaging: in-house says something different than outsource. Customers are confused.
Missing coordination: two teams work on same segment without knowing about each other.
How to think about it
Rules for hybrid: 1) Clear segment or stage division (not "both do everything"). 2) Unified messaging framework. 3) Shared data and reporting. 4) Clear governance and escalation paths.
Goal: from customer perspective, should look like one team.
- Segments: clear division of who owns what
- Messaging: unified framework for all
- Data: shared CRM, unified reporting
- Governance: who decides, escalation paths
What you gain and what you lose
Hybrid: flexibility + control. Can scale while keeping core in-house. But: more complex management, potential conflicts.
Pure model (purely in-house or outsource): simplicity, clear responsibility. But: less flexibility.
When to apply
Hybrid makes sense when: 1) You have different segments with different needs. 2) You need capacity flexibility. 3) You want to test new markets without internal investment.
You do not need hybrid when: you are small (under 3-5 SDRs), or have very consistent workload.
Hybrid combines benefits of both models, but requires clear boundaries, unified messaging, shared data, and governance. From customer perspective must look like one team.