skip to Main Content

While there’s some truth to indies thriving at the expense of network shops, Co:definery’s research shows that in fact it’s between agency disciplines where marketers see the greatest difference in value.

Image: Supermarket News

Given many clients’ pandemic-powered need to pivot, agencies of all shapes and sizes have been forced to work faster and more flexibly than ever. 

In that context, it’s no surprise that many independents are claiming ‘agility’ as their USP, while decrying the networks as slow, bloated or even dying. It certainly makes sense that they might often be more naturally nimble than their larger cousins, so it’s become an easy narrative to sustain. 

Indeed, while indies have picked up various high profile clients in recent times, the network shops – or rather the holding companies – are forced to air their understandably downbeat numbers in public. So it’s tempting to imagine that the headwinds faced by all agencies are mainly slowing the larger players. 

But how real is that? To find out, Co:definery teamed up with creative leadership specialists Curve and research agency BAMM to explore marketers’ attitudes towards their agencies – in particular their views networks and independents. 

The findings tell a far more nuanced story.

 

The impact of ownership

Our research started by asking clients whether network vs indie is even a factor in who they worked with. That was a resounding ‘yes’. Only 16% said it didn’t matter – less than half the 33% who said the distinction was critical. 

Interestingly, only 22% of clients who actually use indies said ownership status is important, whereas 56% of those using network agencies said it matters a lot. Similarly, the higher the client’s budget, the more that ownership matters. 

All this stands to reason – higher spending clients often need scale and geographical breadth, which of course are tangible points of difference for network agencies (the clue’s in the name). 

So in short, size does matter – no sniggering at the back – and indies vs networks is definitely a thing. 

 

What marketers really want

Next we asked clients what they want from indies and network agencies. By some distance, the most important quality for network agencies is ‘breadth of service’, with 33% of clients citing this as their key factor. For existing users of network agencies, this increases to 40%. 

Interestingly, for clients also using indies, while breadth remains networks’ most important quality, at 30%, ‘access to top talent’ is the joint-top answer. Perhaps those clients have grown used to having founders on their account? 

Turning to indies, as we might expect, clients see their most popular quality as ‘speed, flexibility and agility’, as chosen by 31% of marketers. Perhaps tellingly, this increases to 36% amongst clients also using network agencies. And for clients currently using indies, 35% cited ‘track record in my industry’ as an even greater factor in their appeal.

So might sector experience be more of a given amongst larger network shops? Or could indies be working on more innovative projects, with clients particularly seeking provenance from within their own market? 

This importance of ‘breadth’ to networks and ‘agility’ to indies is where our research most supports the prevailing narrative. But how are these preferences evolving? 

 

Pre-pandemic perceptions

Of course in 2021, current perceptions may differ greatly from those in ‘the before times’. So first we asked clients how their views on networks and indies had evolved in the 2-3 years prior to Covid-19.

Perhaps surprisingly, this was good news for holding companies – 28% of clients said network agencies had become more attractive, whereas only 18% said the same of indies. 

This contrast was even greater for clients with higher budgets, who were more likely to be using network agencies. Not only did 54% of those marketers say that networks had become more attractive, but 62% said indies had become less so.

So prior to Covid-19, indies weren’t thriving at the expense of the networks. In fact, positivity was flowing the other way. 

 

The Covid-19 factor 

Of course, the world changed in March 2020. So we also asked marketers how their perceptions of networks and indies had changed since the pandemic began. This still didn’t support the notion of masses of network clients heading for indies. 

Starting with perceptions of independents, overall 47% of clients report no change since Covid-19. And for those already using indies, ‘no change’ remains the most popular answer. But for those marketers also using networks, 48% said that indies have become more attractive. So not good news for networks. 

When we asked about perceptions of network agencies, ‘no change’ is again the dominant response, regardless of whether clients were already using networks or indies. That said, 26% of the latter also said that networks are now less attractive. 

So the pandemic is indeed driving greater preference for indies, albeit as a measured shift rather than a fundamental market realignment. But what’s behind this change? 

 

Enabling brands to pivot

Having previously explored the qualities that make networks and indies attractive, we also asked which of those criteria had become more important since the pandemic began.

Alongside ‘quality (i.e. of people, thinking and work)’ and ‘track record in my industry’, clients of both agency types told us that ‘speed, flexibility and agility’ has become their priority. 

So while network agencies’ pre-Covid trump card of ‘breadth of service’ has dropped right down the client wish-list, the independents’ prized asset of ‘speed, flexibility and agility’ has jumped to the top. 

Looking at the highest spending clients reveals another interesting finding. For these marketers, there’s also a pronounced increase in the importance placed on ‘access to top talent’. 

So the message is clear – with clients urgently needing to pivot, they want to work with the best people who can also bring relevant experience. 

 

What frustrates clients about agencies

As well as positive criteria, we also looked at the perceived challenges that clients face when working with different agency types. 

For network agencies, across the whole sample, value is the biggest issue, with 35% of clients complaining that the ‘results don’t justify the fees’. Amongst clients using indies too, network agencies’ perceived absence of value rises to 48%. And for marketers who are already using network agencies, their being ‘slow to take on feedback’ ranks just as high. 

But before independent agency leaders get too excited about this whiff of bloated slowness, how do clients describe their challenges? 

Across all marketers, the top criticism of indies is being ‘slow to take on feedback’. For those clients working with indies, the ‘results don’t justify the fees’ comes joint top. And for clients also using network agencies, these top indie frustrations also include a ‘lack of sector understanding’ and ‘lack of proactivity’. 

So while issues around money and listening to feedback are consistent across all agency types, this proactivity complaint might particularly sting for indies, who consider it a key component of their agility. 

Bottom line: it’s tough out there and no agencies are getting an easy ride. 

 

Where ownership matters most

All these frustrations and perceptions are interesting, of course, but how do they inform real-world behaviour? We asked clients which marketing disciplines they were most likely to switch – firstly from network to indie and then vice versa. 

At 26%, both Digital Product/Service Design and CRM are most likely to be moved from network agencies into indies. Design and Search/PPC are close behind. 

Existing clients of network agencies echo the overall story, with Digital Transformation (e.g. digital infrastructure, tech, e-commerce) also ranking highly. This is consistent with marketers already using indies – Digital Product/Service Design and CRM are still most likely to be reviewed out of networks, with Media now close behind. 

Interestingly, for clients already using independent agencies, Digital Transformation is far less likely to be reviewed out of a network. Perhaps frustrated network agency clients only imagine the grass will be greener until they’ve seen what awaits.

To complete the picture for network agencies, what are their ‘safest’ disciplines? The least likely to be switched to an indie are Advertising, PR, Experiential and Social Media.

Let’s turn to the reverse journey – the disciplines that independent agency clients are most open to moving to a network.

Although Digital Transformation and CRM rank highly again, at 28% it’s PR that shoots to the top of the indie frustration league table. So that’s bad news for independent PR agencies. Research then completes the top four most at risk disciplines. 

Drilling into the data again, for marketers also using network agencies, PR and Digital Transformation still rank highly. But at 40%, CRM is the most likely to be moved from indie to network. For clients currently working with indies, PR remains out in front (or rather behind), with Research and Experiential also showing marked rises up the likely-to-review list. 

The disciplines least likely to be shifted from indies into networks are consistent with the opposite journey. So Advertising and Social Media remain ‘safest’, but are now joined by Media – good news for media independents. These rankings are similar across clients who use both indies and networks. 

 

Context is everything

Our research illustrates how the pandemic has impacted client needs, but there’s no single story about how networks and indies have adapted and prospered. 

Although there’s some truth in certain generalisations – including tangible differences like geography or group-wide media buying – the reality is that context is everything. 

Marketers need different things at different times – especially since Covid-19. And given that lockdown caused an urgent refocus on digital, no wonder personalised, data-driven disciplines like CRM and Digital Product/Service Design are most likely to be reviewed – into or out of both agency types.

Similarly, more creatively-driven disciplines like Advertising, Experiential and Social Media are less likely to be moved. Perhaps they’ve offered both indies and networks the opportunity to showcase their flexibility. 

 

Dial up differentiation

So what now? Given the talent, societal and workplace changes that all agencies were already facing within the evolving digital economy, clearly we won’t return to the ‘old normal’. 

Will network agencies die? No. Are they changing? Absolutely. Will large clients always need some kind of scale? Almost certainly. But with digitally native independents gathering breadth and momentum, marketing and procurement people have more options than ever before.

In which case, for all agency leaders, the lesson from lockdown must be that demonstrating deep expertise really matters. Being generic and timid will make you invisible – to talent as well as to clients. 

So whether you’re an indie or a network, the race is on: differentiate or die. 

Robin Bonn is the founder of agency management consultancy Co:definery.

 

The Alliance of Independent Agencies Future Leaders Action group has embarked on an initiative that considers what the Future Agency looks like 18-24 months out from now i.e. 2023 onwards

Please can you help this initiative by completing the following questionnaire. It is a mix of multiple-choice and open questions and should take no longer than 30 minutes to complete and can be complete here:

Future Leaders Agency of Future Survey

Back To Top