The inconvenient truth about agency independence

Let's be honest about something the industry doesn't want to discuss: network agencies are getting a disproportionate share of marketing spend, and clients are suffering for it.

This isn't about small versus large, or traditional versus digital. It's about a fundamental market failure that's leading to suboptimal outcomes for brands. The evidence? Just look at what clients say they need most: deep specialist expertise, genuine senior talent involvement, rapid response to market changes, seamless integration across channels, and value-based pricing that reflects real business impact.

"What's fascinating – and frankly, frustrating – is that independent agencies are consistently better positioned to deliver all of these things," observes Amar Chohan, founder of DCA. "Yet many clients default to network agencies, particularly for larger briefs, simply because they're unaware that better alternatives exist. It's a case of the comfortable choice winning over the right choice."

_{The integration illusion}

Let's tackle the biggest myth first: that only networks can deliver integrated solutions. It's a compelling story – multiple specialist capabilities under one roof, working in harmony. But here's the reality: forced collaboration within networks, driven by profit-sharing requirements rather than client needs, rarely delivers the seamless integration it promises.

Meanwhile, independent agencies have quietly built something more effective: sophisticated partnership models that bring together genuine best-in-class specialists. No internal politics. No mandatory use of underperforming network assets. Just the right talent for each specific challenge.

_{The global capability myth}

Then there's the persistent belief that only networks can handle international briefs. It's time to put this outdated thinking to rest. Many independent agencies now offer global solutions that outperform their network counterparts, precisely because they can select the best partners in each market rather than being forced to work with whatever network office happens to exist.

_{Independence as competitive advantage}

The real advantage of independence isn't about ownership structure – it's about the freedom to put client interests first. Without network profit pressures, independent agencies can maintain higher ratios of senior talent and keep them deeply involved in client work. They can price based on value rather than network margins. They can adapt quickly to changing client needs without navigating layers of corporate approval.

"The vast majority of clients would be better served by independent agencies," Chohan states bluntly. "And I don't just mean smaller clients – I'm talking about major brands with complex international needs. The challenge isn't capability or scale – it's awareness. Marketing leaders simply don't know these independent alternatives exist, and the traditional intermediary model is designed to keep it that way."

_{A call for change}

The disproportionate flow of marketing spend to network agencies isn't just a missed opportunity for independents – it's actively harmful to the industry's health. When exceptional independent agencies struggle to gain visibility with potential clients, it creates a market imbalance that ultimately degrades creative quality and client outcomes.

This isn't about dismantling networks – it's about creating a more equitable playing field where the best solution wins, regardless of ownership structure. The future of effective marketing partnerships depends on finding the right combination of expertise, agility and client focus. More often than not, these qualities are found in independent agencies – if only clients knew where to look.

The question isn't whether independence matters. The question is: how much value are brands leaving on the table by not considering independent alternatives? That is a question no brand can afford to ignore.