As holding companies streamline, do independent agencies gain an edge?

Advertising has always been a business of maps; who’s the largest, who owns what, which network controls which markets, how influence travels. On November 26, that map became obsolete. 

Omnicom announced the completion of its $13.5 billion takeover of Interpublic Group, a deal that immediately remapped the summit of global advertising and created a single holding company with more than $25 billion of combined annual revenue. 

Omnicom introduced a leaner, centralised structure, naming BBDO, McCann and TBWA as its three flagship creative networks. The flip side of this consolidation was far more jarring. 

In one sweep, the world’s oldest holding companies fused into a single giant, and then began dismantling some of adland’s most iconic agency brands.

DDB. FCB. MullenLowe.

For ad people who charted careers at those storied shops, the announcement of erasure of institutions with decades of creative legacy, felt like the lights going out on a hometown cinema. These agencies carried reputations, habits and languages that shaped how clients bought ideas. Brands that taught whole generations how to shape culture, now risk becoming footnotes in a consolidation thesis. 

But there is another emotion in the room: anxiety. Omnicom’s post-close reorganisation, positioned as an operational necessity, has already triggered a cascade of layoffs. Targeting $750 million in synergies, Omnicom has undertaken more than 4,000 post-merger layoffs, on top of the 6,200 combined cuts from both companies last year, taking the two-year job-loss tally past 10,000 roles.

Beyond the human cost, turbulence carries another consequence: unpredictability for clients. For marketers doing billion-dollar launches or sensitive brand repositioning, the question arises: who will be running my account in six months, and will the people I brief today still exist as part of the same team tomorrow? 

Which brings us to the story that matters to clients, creatives, and independents alike: In this moment of centralisation, is independence becoming an attractive client pitch again? What becomes the selling point of being independent? Is the pitch, “we’re smaller, hungrier, and senior-led”, perhaps the sharpest commercial argument of the town? 

Independent agencies reflect on where they stand now as the ground underneath advertising shakes up and why, for some clients, independence may now read less like ideology and more like insurance.

When legacy names disappear

The retirement of century-old networks sparked a collective sense of disorientation. In an industry that builds identities around creative lineage, seeing three iconic names vanish overnight hit harder than a standard restructuring.

Several industry leaders say the news has hit them on a deeply personal level. Aalap Desai, Founder of tgthr, is surely one of them. 

“I felt a sense of loss. These are the places I’ve built my career and grown up in. It’s like a hometown disappearing one day. You don’t have that place of familiarity in the same universe anymore.”

For Desai, the sadness runs deeper as these names were pillars of the industry, and losing them feels like the industry is losing a part of its culture and identity.

A broader unease echoes across the ecosystem. Even those who never worked within these legacy networks feel the shift because it tightens the competitive landscape and concentrates influence further.

Chaaya Baradhwaaj, Founder of BC Webwise, shared that consolidations of this scale “always worry” her because they compress control and reshape how clients make decisions.
But she also adds that mergers aren’t new; they’re cyclical.

M&As will keep happening when companies want to exit, cash out or see better prospects after merging.

-Chaaya Baradhwaaj

What makes this moment different is the magnitude. The retirement of iconic networks signals a deeper structural change, not just another acquisition, but a reframing of what agency power looks like.

And as this foundational shift settles, one question rises to the surface: does independence suddenly feel safer than scale?

Chaos vs. stability

If the past year has shown anything, it’s that large networks, despite their global muscle, are no longer synonymous with stability. With mass layoffs, restructured leadership layers, and collapsing network identities, the idea of “continuity” is at risk.

Clients already operating in volatile markets are spooked by the turbulence inside the very agencies expected to provide strategic clarity.

This is where independents sense an opening, not because they’re opportunistic, but because their structure inherently avoids the instability plaguing networks.

Desai said, “The consolidations mean a lot of chaos in the ranks and in the management. People leave and there are multiple changes across levels. This makes an already nervous client more nervous.”

He highlighted that high-stakes projects increasingly feel risky within networks because clients fear losing key personnel midstream. As a result, they’re choosing independent shops that promise dedicated senior attention and continuity, luxuries that networks are struggling to offer amid reorganisation.

Ahmed Aftab Naqvi, Global CEO and Co-founder of Gozoop Group, said, “Independent agencies can move with the speed of instinct. Networks move with the weight of process.”

As AI, culture, and consumer expectations evolve weekly, clients might increasingly value agility over infrastructure. Chaos inside networks is inadvertently making stability the strongest selling point for independents.

The real USP: Senior talent, accountability and culture

As networks aggregate and centralise, decision-making becomes heavier. Independents, meanwhile, are doubling down on what they’ve always offered: immediate access to senior talent, faster decision loops, and leadership that stays hands-on.

Brands today don’t want layers, they want outcomes. And they want to know that the people pitching the work are also the ones who will stay to execute it.

Desai calls “senior attention and attention” the primary product of independents. He believes this is the only reason why a client considers an independent agency.

He explained, “To have access to the same talent at a network for a client will need so much more money to be paid. At independents, it is received in abundance. The clients realise the value of that. They know that independents also have a lot at stake and that turns into dedication for the work. Eventually the product that comes out for the client is also exceptional.”

Adding another lens, Baradhwaaj emphasised reputation and pedigree even more than scale.

She pointed out that while large clients traditionally chose networks for their perceived muscle, the digital era has levelled the field.

She said, “Usually clients come to you when your pitch meets their brief, excites them, and they like you. At that point, network or not doesn’t matter as much.”

Her point reframes the conversation: independence is not a fallback, nor is a network badge a guarantee. Craft, capability, chemistry and culture matter more than affiliation.

To capitalise or hold back?

The market has shifted around the independents putting them in an interesting position. Naqvi is optimistic that the migration toward independents is already underway, but sees it as a natural evolution.

He said, “The shift has already started. Talent and clients are gravitating to independents because that’s where the real work, real speed, and real accountability live.”

For Naqvi, the responsibility lies in staying true to culture and independence, not in chasing short-term gains.

There is also an ethical tension underlying the current landscape: if the industry is grieving the loss of legacy networks and facing widespread job cuts, should independents frame this as an opportunity?

The fall of network identity is not merely a business shift, it affects people, livelihoods and an entire creative ecosystem.

Addressing this nuance, Pallavi Chakravarti, Founder & CCO, Fundamental, said, “This is not the right time for an indie vs. network agency land grab. There are bigger issues at stake, like the stability of the industry and the livelihoods of people that may be affected by these changes.”

Chakravarti points out that clients worked with independents long before this shake-up, and there’s no reason they won’t continue to do so.

We’re competitors, not vultures and at present should worry about steadying the ship and not “seeking advantage.”

-Pallavi Chakravarti

Together, their perspectives ground the conversation: yes, independents are better positioned than ever, but the moment requires integrity and not opportunism.

The Omnicom-IPG acquisition marks a tectonic shift in the advertising world. It has forced agencies, clients and talent to confront a reality that was easy to ignore: size is no longer synonymous with strength. Heritage no longer ensures stability. And creativity no longer flows predictably through legacy structures.

Independents aren’t emerging because networks are collapsing, they’ve always been here, doing some of the most culturally resonant, strategically bold work in the market. But after the industry shake-ups, their greatest strengths, stability, senior involvement, agility, culture, accountability, have become the very things clients fear losing in large networks.

So, is independence an attractive pitch now? It may not be the default choice, but it has certainly become a more serious option for clients seeking stability and senior attention.