Creative agency consolidation

The consolidation of advertising agencies under a few large holding companies has sparked debates about its impact on creativity. There are arguments on both sides, and the reality is somewhat nuanced. Equally I’m not sure that in places procurement departments shouldn’t take a proportion of any blame that might be attributed.

Consolidation often leads to the prioritisation of efficiency and cost-cutting, which can lead to standardised processes. This might encourage safer, more formulaic approaches to creative work. Agencies within larger holding companies may be under pressure to deliver consistent, predictable results to maintain profitability, limiting the freedom to experiment or take risks with bold, innovative ideas.?

In larger, consolidated structures, creative decisions can be filtered through multiple layers of management. This can dilute original ideas as more stakeholders with differing priorities become involved in the approval process. Creative teams could feel less empowered to push boundaries if they anticipate extensive revisions or compromises.

As agency groups grow through consolidation, creativity can become seen as a commodity. Large holding companies often treat advertising and creative services as part of a portfolio of offerings, including media buying, data analytics, and consulting. This can shift the focus from crafting unique, high-impact campaigns to delivering "creative assets" that fit into broader, and some might argue watered down marketing strategies.?

Consolidation often leads to the absorption or closure of smaller, independent agencies. These boutique businesses typically offer more specialised, niche creative services, often with greater flexibility and risk-taking. As these smaller firms disappear or are integrated into larger corporate structures, the diversity of creative approaches may also decline.

Tim Peppiatt – Asahi UK, Marketing Procurement