Once an organization decides its template needs to work properly with Copilot, the next question is who does the work. Your own design team knows the brand intimately. An outside partner may have done this before. Both options have costs, and the obvious ones — salary time versus a fee — are rarely the ones that decide the outcome.
This post gives you a framework for comparing the two honestly. We’re an outside partner, so we have an interest in the answer; we’ve tried to write the framework so it’s useful even if you conclude the work belongs in-house.
What the project involves
Whoever does it, a Copilot-ready template project usually includes:
- Audit — assessing the current template against Microsoft’s published guidance: theme, masters, layouts, placeholders, example slides.
- Rebuild — moving the brand into the theme, rebuilding layouts with real, correctly sized placeholders, cleaning up duplicates and filling gaps.
- Example slides — designing a set of finished examples across the slide types and densities your people use. Microsoft describes sample slides as Copilot’s primary learning source.
- Brand Kit and settings — setting up the official kit, deciding strict brand adherence and writing note instructions.
- Written rules — drafting and testing Brand Skills.
- Testing — a fixed set of realistic prompts, run before and after, with output scored.
- Upkeep — re-testing and updating at least quarterly.
The in-house cost
The visible cost is designer time. The costs that tend to be missed:
Opportunity cost. Designer hours spent on the template are hours not spent on the decks that matter or on the routine queue. If your design team is already at capacity, the template project either displaces other work or drags on.
Learning cost. Copilot’s template behavior is specific and new: sample slides as primary teaching material, placeholder type, position and size, the Slide Master fallback, strict brand adherence, note instructions, Brand Skills. Microsoft introduced two significant changes in September 2026 alone. An in-house team doing this for the first time will spend time learning what works — which is valuable, but is a cost.
Testing cost. Building and running a fixed prompt set, scoring output consistently, and diagnosing failures is its own discipline. Teams sometimes skip it and judge the template by eye, which is how templates that look good but teach poorly get approved.
Continuity cost. The upkeep has to survive vacations, departures and reorganizations. If the knowledge lives with one designer, it leaves with them.
Strength in-house: nobody knows your brand, your people and your politics better. Your designers are also the right people to approve example slides and to own the system long term, whoever builds it.
The outside-partner cost
The visible cost is the fee. The costs that tend to be missed:
Onboarding cost. A partner needs to learn your brand, your decks and your people. Good partners minimize this by starting from an audit and real presentations, but your team’s time is still needed.
Approval cost. Your brand team should approve example slides and rules. That review time is real, and shouldn’t be skipped.
Dependency cost. If the partner owns all the knowledge, you depend on them for every change. A good engagement transfers enough understanding — and documentation — that your team could maintain the system.
Upkeep cost. If the partner also handles quarterly re-testing, that’s an ongoing fee. If they don’t, your team inherits it.
Strength outside: experience from having done this before, a tested method, and designer capacity that doesn’t compete with your production queue.
A comparison framework
Rather than comparing a salary estimate with a quote, compare total cost for the same scope:
| Cost | In-house | Outside partner |
|---|---|---|
| Audit | Designer time | Partner fee (often fixed) |
| Rebuild and examples | Designer time + opportunity cost | Partner fee + your approval time |
| Learning | Significant, first time | Largely absorbed by the partner |
| Testing | Designer time; risk of skipping | Included, if the partner has a method |
| Brand Kit and rules | Brand manager time | Brand manager time + partner support |
| Upkeep | Ongoing internal time | Ongoing fee, or handed to your team |
| Risk of an untested launch | Higher if testing is skipped | Lower if testing is part of the scope |
Fill in your own numbers. Include the opportunity cost honestly — it’s often the largest in-house line.
Hybrid options
The choice isn’t binary. Splits worth considering:
- Partner audits, in-house rebuilds. You get an outside assessment against Microsoft’s guidance and a clear plan; your team does the work.
- In-house rebuilds, partner designs examples and tests. Your team handles the mechanical rebuild; the partner handles the teaching material and the testing method.
- Partner builds, in-house owns. The partner does the project with your designers alongside, then hands over upkeep with documentation.
- In-house builds, partner provides oversight. Your team runs the system; the partner re-tests quarterly and reports.
How to decide
Three questions usually settle it:
- Does your design team have capacity without starving the decks that matter?
- Has anyone on your team done this before — including testing against real prompts?
- Who will own upkeep after launch, and do they have the time?
If the answers are yes, yes and “us,” in-house is likely the better value. If any answer is no, some outside help — even just an audit and a testing method — can be worth its cost by avoiding a template that looks right and teaches poorly.
Key takeaways
- A Copilot template project covers audit, rebuild, examples, Brand Kit and settings, rules, testing and upkeep.
- In-house costs include opportunity, learning, testing and continuity — not just designer time.
- Partner costs include onboarding, approval, dependency and upkeep — not just the fee.
- Compare total cost for the same scope, and consider hybrid splits.
- Capacity, experience and ownership of upkeep usually decide it.
Want an outside assessment either way? Have your template scored.**
Related reading
- A bad template, multiplied by every Copilot user
- Seat depth: why your savings depend on who has a license
- Where the savings in generated decks come from, and where they leak
Sources
- Microsoft Support, Keep your presentation on-brand with Copilot (July 2026)
- Microsoft Support, Manage template settings in your Brand Kit for Copilot in PowerPoint (August 2026)
- Microsoft 365 Message Center, MC1470415 and MC1473166 (Sep 2026)
