Broker vs. In-House Sales Team: The Math Nobody Wants to Do

At some point every growing brand has this argument with itself, usually around 2am after a bad sales month: should we hire our own VP of Sales, or stick with a broker? The honest answer depends on numbers most founders haven't actually run, because running them requires admitting things about the business that are uncomfortable.

A full-time CPG sales hire, loaded with salary, benefits, travel, and the year it takes them to actually know your category and build real buyer relationships, runs well past six figures before they've closed a single new door. A broker gets paid on results, has existing buyer relationships that took someone else a decade to build, and can be reallocated or walked away from if the fit isn't right, none of which is true of a bad hire you now have to manage out.

The case for in-house comes later, usually once a brand has enough SKU velocity and retailer relationships that the volume justifies a dedicated person managing it full time, and even then a lot of established brands keep a broker relationship for categories or regions where they don't have coverage. It's not either-or as much as the industry likes to frame it that way. Some of the strongest sales organizations run a hybrid: in-house leadership for strategy and key accounts, broker coverage for the regional distributors and independent chains that don't justify a full-time headcount.

The mistake I see most often isn't picking the wrong option, it's picking based on ego instead of stage. Founders want an in-house team because it feels like arrival, like proof the brand made it. Meanwhile the brand is still pre-revenue-proof in half its target categories and burning cash on a salary it can't yet support. Hire for where the business actually is, not for the LinkedIn headline you want to post.