Services: Green Square

Tony Walford argues that while the largest agency deals may dominate the headlines, it is smaller firms that are generating the greatest volume, competition and momentum in today’s marcomms M&A market. I had the pleasure of being on a panel at The Drum’s Predictions event a couple of weeks ago. I talked about how, last year, I was a bit early in saying 2025 was going to be the year of the independent agency. Looking back, 2025 was the year we saw many indies start up. But in 2026, I believe we’ll see many more. As the networks focus in on themselves, how they deal with the impact of AI, consolidate their offers and improve their margins, clients are looking for fleet of foot and the creativity that you get from small, nimble hot-shops, unburdened by legacy thinking, structures and hierarchy. And as we see more agency startups spinning out of the networks, we’ll also see more collectives forming. Groups of smaller agencies, like Beyond and Harbour, coming together to deliver on client briefs where different capabilities are required. These models allow agencies to retain their own identity and independence, while giving them access to a broad range of marketing skillsets and allowing them to grow. I was asked about what all this means for the M&A landscape, and it’s here we’re seeing a fundamental shift in size of deals and the nature of buyers, which got me thinking. For years, the assumption in marcomms M&A has been that the biggest deals tell the most important story. Large network and PE-backed agency groups buying global scale and scope have dominated the headlines. However, in 2025 the nature of buyers in this market changed, for several reasons. And, as the mist lifts on the start of 2026, we’re seeing a very different landscape emerge. Over the years we’ve got used to the constant cacophony and disruption of geopolitical and macro-economic risks. Think global credit crunch, Brexit, Isis, Covid, Trump v1.0 & 2.0, Ukraine, Gaza. While we’ve seen M&A activity in our sector vary concomitantly, it’s always bounced back, with the bigger agencies – over £10m revenue, £3m EBIT, 100+ people – being the most sought after. While the network groups have only ever formed a handful of available buyers, they are often looked upon as bellwethers of how the market is performing as a whole. In 2025, with the exception of Publicis and the challenger group Stagwell, the other networks published lackluster results. We have seen large-scale layoffs across WPP and Omnicom/IPG while Dentsu announced a retrenchment back to Japan to put its international arm up for sale, a move it’s now had to row back on in the absence of a buyer. That said, while there is still strong M&A interest for large independent agencies, particularly from PE-backed emerging groups, the real volume of deal activity today is happening at the smaller end of the spectrum. That’s agencies with up to £10m revenue, £1m–£3m EBIT and fewer than 100 employees rather than larger agencies generating £5m+ EBIT with workforces exceeding 200 people. While the latter still command attention, it is the former that are driving momentum, velocity and competition across the sector.

A widening gap in transaction volume

In practical terms, there are simply more deals taking place among smaller agencies than larger ones. This is not because smaller agencies are inherently better businesses but because they sit in a far more liquid part of the market. Agencies valued below £15–£20m attract interest from the widest possible buyer pool. Strategic acquirers, private equity platforms, PE-backed bolt-on vehicles, entrepreneurial buyers (such as Common Interest and Brave Bison), and even passive financial investors can all compete in this segment. As a result, demand materially outstrips supply, pushing both pricing and deal activity higher. Once agencies move into the £5m+ EBIT bracket, the picture changes. The buyer universe narrows sharply, primarily leaving larger PE funds and a limited number of global strategic groups with the balance sheets and integration capability to transact at that level. And fewer buyers inevitably means fewer transactions, even if individual deal values are higher.

Why entrepreneurial buyers are reshaping the market

One of the most significant drivers of small-agency M&A volume is the rise of the entrepreneurial buyer. A few years ago, agency acquisitions were largely the preserve of PE firms and major holding companies. Today, a growing cohort are acquiring agencies as their first platform investment. Often supported by structured financing, these buyers see agencies as an accessible entry point: asset-light, cash-generative and resilient. This influx of new buyers has dramatically increased competition for agencies in the £1m–£3m EBIT range, while having little impact on the larger end of the market, where deal sizes and risk profiles remain prohibitive for first-time acquirers. That said, buyers will always be cognizant of the risks commonly found in smaller agencies, those that are sub-£1m EBIT, reliant on one or two clients in their revenue stream or in an area which is competitive or commoditized. Agencies with these characteristics will always struggle to find an acquirer at any sort of premium.

Scale brings complexity, not speed

Larger agencies face a different reality. Transactions at this level are inherently more complex, involving layered leadership teams, international operations, legacy client concentration and often slower growth rates. Due diligence cycles are longer, integration risks are higher and valuation expectations are more tightly scrutinized. This doesn’t mean large agencies are unattractive. But it does mean fewer buyers are willing or able to transact – particularly as size can price many acquirers out, with a lot of buyers looking to spend less in what is currently seen as a riskier market – and deals take longer to execute. In contrast, smaller agencies benefit from clarity: simpler cost bases, tighter propositions and faster decision-making, all of which support higher transaction velocity.

Clarity beats size in today’s market

Another factor favouring smaller agencies is narrative clarity. Buyers consistently gravitate towards businesses with a clearly articulated proposition, whether that is a defined vertical focus or a specific capability. Smaller agencies are often better positioned to tell that story succinctly while larger businesses can struggle with diluted positioning as they grow, through service expansion or past acquisitions. As I mentioned at the start, it ’s this agility and ability to pivot that clients, and thus buyers, find attractive. Additionally, while a large full-service agency would appeal to PE buyers looking for a platform acquisition, many trade or PE-backed buyers may already have some of the disciplines on offer and so might only be interested in certain elements within the seller agency’s mix. Having clarity of offer translates directly into deal activity. Buyers can quickly assess strategic fit, underwrite growth and move forward with confidence.

What this means for the sector

While the largest agencies will always command headline valuations, the center of gravity for M&A activity in marcomms has shifted decisively towards smaller firms. The combination of a broad buyer pool, entrepreneurial demand and simpler deal dynamics means that agencies with £1m–£3m EBIT are now much more in demand than their larger peers. For founders the implication is clear: size alone doesn’t determine exit opportunity. In today’s market, focus, profitability and narrative clarity matter far more than headcount. For the industry as a whole, it’s the smaller end of the market that is setting the pace, even if the biggest deals continue to grab the spotlight. Read more

Just last week, Tony Walford, a partner at finance and M&A advisory firm Green Square Associates, told The Drum that “this year will certainly be the year of the indie.” Walford’s not the only one making that prediction – one that’s based on continued struggles for some of the marketing world’s biggest networks and ensuing organisational shifts, the fruits of which are yet to be proven. One of Walford’s more specific predictions is that independent agency groups may be increasingly able to cash in their agility, combined with the outsize impact of inter-agency collaboration to increasingly take work from major global incumbents in a trend that sees increasing bullishness for the rich constellation of formal groupings, informal collaborative agreements and everything in between that makes up the agency world’s bullish midmarket. One of those growing independent groups is the London-headquartered Tomorrow, led by chair Tina Judic. Styled as a ‘collective,’ Tomorrow comprises AI creative studio Seed, search agency Found, data shop Braidr, intelligence platform Luminr and influencer marketing agency Disrupt. Disrupt changes its complexion today with two announcements: a new managing director and a new subsidiary. Tomorrow has acquired qualitative research shop Imagen Insights, which will become part of Disrupt while its co-founder, Jay Richards, becomes Disrupt’s MD. Imagen co-founder Cat Agostinho will stay on to lead Imagen. It’s a busy week for Richards; as he steps into his new role, he’s not at his London desk but in Doha, hosting the ‘marketing summit’ at the third annual edition of Web Summit Qatar (his responsibilities include hosting a couple of sessions moderated by The Drum). When he sits down with The Drum fresh from an overnight flight, he says it’s “interesting” having a boss again. “I haven’t had that for seven years.” Who that new boss is is interesting. Not long ago, organisations like Imagen would have had one clear acquisition goal: a sale to one of marketing’s big six global networks. But that has changed; while the major holding companies still acquire agencies, they’ve been overtaken by private equity shops as the hungriest acquirers, with those independent groups also growing around the edges. Richards agrees that the landscape has shifted in the seven years since he co-founded Imagen. “100%, massive acquisition by a huge organization was always the north star” in the early days of the business, he says. “But the interesting thing around the midmarket is, having your business acquired, you feel like you have a little bit more control. If you go to one of those larger organizations, you’re just going to get swallowed into the group… It’s like, ‘Welcome to the beast.’ It’s kind of like the Roman Empire.” The alternative to the Roman Empire, Richards says, is a more collaborative approach. “There’s an element of, ‘We want to build with you,’ not just ‘Come in, we need your technology, we need your employees, we need your clients.’ It’s ‘What’s your vision? We want to build with you.’” Imagen’s specialism is qualitative research – a panel of 37,000 people in 111 markets ready to be called upon for research rapidly, Richards says, and accessible by an online tool enhanced by AI Q&A. It’s that qualitative focus, he says, that differentiates the new-look Disrupt from an industry that often focuses instead on amassing reams of quantitative data and churning out content to replicable formulae. “The problem we’ve got with a lot of brands is that we’ve pulled away from that real art of storytelling. We’re going, ‘Here are the four or five templates that we’ve got, we’re going to shove this down your throat, and you’re going to you’re going to enjoy it.’ It’s not the brand’s fault. From a platform perspective, we’ve designed this system where, OK, we’re all trying to get paid and, if we’re all going to get paid, here are the four or five ways that we need to do it to make sure we can all get everything we need out of it.” The costs of that approach to digital marketing that gets everyone paid with familiar formats and approaches? We all get bored of it, Richards says. “The audience has pulled back from that and gone, ‘Yeah, we get it. We hear you. But everything looks identical. Now, it just feels like deja vu every time I watch a video.’ To get genuine influence, you need to enable the person watching the video to feel like they’re watching somebody who knows how to tell a story, watching somebody who knows how to build a world.” And it’s qual, not just quant, that can get us to work that truly influences in a sustainable way, Richards argues. “The element of storytelling and world-building that creators can give at scale: that’s really rich and it’s qualitative. From a qualitative perspective, we understand what consumers want. If you understand what the consumer wants, then you can go, ‘OK, this is what the story should be around, here’s the initial idea, now go and build your world.’” The hope of the new kind of agency group is to build a set of capabilities that can compete with larger incumbents, while weaponizing the agility of smaller scale. With this addition of consumer-grounded research into a wider group that’s going hard on AI, Richards says, Tomorrow hopes it has found its “silver bullet.” “Now, not only do we understand brands internally, but we have the consumer data to see what they’re saying before we do anything and do it quickly. It’s not just going, ‘We’re the smart people internally.’ We’ve got smart people, but now we’re also bringing the consumer into the room and bringing their voice to then be heard.” Read more

Watch Green Square partner Tony Walford share his perspective on The Shape of Agencies to Come for The Drum Predictions 2026. As holding companies invest heavily in AI, streamline structures and cut headcount in the race for efficiency, the agency landscape is undergoing fundamental change. With legacy agency brands such as DDB and FCB set to disappear, what will 2026 mean for the future of agencies? In this timely conversation, leading marketers explored what consolidation means for creativity, capability and culture – and how these shifts will affect brands seeking choice, diversity and innovation from their agency partners. The panel offer frank insights on survival, reinvention and what the next era of agencies may look like. Watch here “I think I was slightly early when I said that 2025 would be the year of the indie,” says Tony Walford, a partner at finance and M&A advisory firm Green Square Associates. “But this year will certainly be the year of the indie.” It’s not just that there’s sustained interest from buyers (especially those from the private equity space) in smaller, agile indie agencies. It’s that the industry’s macrodrama – Omnicom’s enormous acquisition of IPG; attempted international divestiture by Dentsu; continued difficulties for WPP – is providing space for growth in the industry’s nimbler corners. “The big thing for me is the potential loss of creativity out the networks,” Walford said today at The Drum’s Predictions event in London. “The good people leave, they go and set up something else, and the networks are becoming a little bit homogenous.” Walford was joined on stage by Jon Goulding, chief executive of indie shop Atomic; Justin Thomas-Copeland, CEO of US trade org the 4As; and Gabrielle Ludzker, the recently departed chief executive of Omnicom agency Rapp. Ludzker knows the dynamics mentioned by Walford better than most, having spent the majority of her career at Omnicom agencies, most recently with that five-year stint at the helm of Rapp. As mergers and reshuffles have directly affected careers around hers, Ludzker sees these shifts as nothing short of a sea change. “It just feels like this merger is almost the end of an era. You can see now that size and scale are of the utmost importance,” Ludzker says. “I think it’s tough for clients in that environment, because clients want to know who the talent is that they’re buying and they form relationships with humans and people and individuals that they value and they see them as really integrated in their businesses and core strategic partners. But you don’t know who you’re buying any more.” A sea change is not a drop in the ocean; Ludzker expects Omnicom-IPG to be far from the last major agency consolidation. “This is a bit depressing,” she says, “But I think we’ll see the death of more amazing brands that we’ve known all our lives and that’ve done incredible work. That’s just not seen as valuable any more… What we’re seeing is that efficiency is now visible to the outside rather than under the surface – and as a result, more talent will leave.” These dynamics inevitably lead to a certain amount of bullishness among smaller independent agencies. But their successes will be as hard-won as ever, says the 4As’ Justin Thomas-Copeland. “A lot of new independents have sprung up,” he says. “Many are doing well, but many are struggling and they’re not struggling because there isn’t a market. They have to find their feet. They have to make some tough choices.” If the major networks have created space, in other words, other organisations will still have to innovate to fill that space. One trend Thomas-Copeland expects to expand in 2026 is indies filling that gap by coming together in looser networks and affiliations to provide an alternative operating model to incumbent networks, at a scale each wouldn’t be able to achieve on its own. “You see a lot of independents sort of coming together as collectives because they don’t have the money to invest and build it themselves. They’re being smart about how they come together. That seems to be working… I think those types of constructs will have their day in the sun.” Jon Goulding, chief exec at indie shop Atomic, agrees that “the indie agency scene is buoyant,” but also says that success will not be automatic. “There’s never been a better time to be an indie, but at the same time, it’s really difficult. The economy is difficult. It’s hard to be self-funded.”      

WPP’s annus horribilis is ending with another blow – it’s been relegated from the FTSE 100. Green Square’s Barry Dudley draws an unlikely parallel to the comeback story of M&S that might give CEO Cindy Rose hope that it can make a return. You have probably already heard about the staggering drop in WPP’s stock market value, but just in case, a mere eight years ago it stood at £24bn. It now languishes at around £3.2bn. In 2025 alone the share price has dropped over 60%. And now there has been a rather symbolic moment to add insult to injury, as WPP has been relegated from the FTSE 100. Replaced by British Land, in case you wondered. Is this the end of an era? Surely there is no way back? Or is there… Not long ago, M&S was shorthand for a tired British institution: overexposed to shrinking high streets, lagging behind in digital, confused about its customer, and carrying a bloated estate that looked increasingly like a museum to a bygone model of retail. By 2019, years of sliding clothing sales, the slow erosion of its once‑dominant food halo and a late move into e‑commerce culminated in stock market humiliation: it dropped out of the FTSE 100 for the first time since the index began in 1984. The numbers told a simple story. Profit warnings had undermined City confidence. Online pure‑plays were winning baskets; fast fashion was winning wardrobes. The brand that once defined the middle of Britain’s high street no longer seemed to know who it was for. When the pandemic hit, it accelerated trends that were already in motion: fewer shoppers in town centres, burgeoning baskets online, greater expectations of convenience, price transparency and purpose. The reinvention of M&S did not begin with a big‑bang campaign, but with a very un‑romantic admission: the model was broken. Under CEO’s Steve Rowe and later Stuart Machin, the company embarked on a wide‑ranging reset that looked, from the outside, more like a private‑equity playbook than a traditional plc tidy‑up. Hundreds of legacy high street stores were either closed, relocated or reshaped into food‑led formats. Capital was reallocated into retail parks of the future and mixed‑use locations that actually matched modern shopping patterns. At the same time, M&S finally committed to digital. Clothing and home were overhauled online: navigation simplified, imagery upgraded, returns made smoother, and the ranges sharpened with fewer, better options. Data started to drive decisions on ranging and markdowns rather than merchandisers’ instinct. Its Sparks loyalty scheme was rebuilt into a data engine that could power personalised offers and smarter media planning, rather than being based around a dusty plastic card at the bottom of a purse. The brand proposition itself was narrowed and made sharper. In clothing, M&S stopped trying to be everything to everyone and doubled down on being the dependable, good‑quality, fashion‑aware choice for a clearly defined broad middle. In food, it leaned harder into distinctiveness and quality at accessible treat prices. A mixture of external agencies and in-house capabilities were used over this period, but one constant was WPP’s very own Mindshare. By 2023, the impact was visible in the financial performance and in perception data. Profits and market share moved in the right direction, clothing was no longer the Achilles’ heel, and food remained a fortress. When M&S was readmitted to the FTSE 100 it signalled that a legacy British brand, written off by many, had managed to re‑wire its economics and identity at the same time – and persuade investors that its best days were not necessarily behind it. For Cindy Rose at WPP, looking up from a very different set of spreadsheets, this M&S chapter perhaps offers a useful, if imperfect mirror. WPP’s relegation from the FTSE 100 crystallises a fear that the old holding company model – built for a world of 30‑second TV spots and annual media deals – has been left behind by platforms, consultancies and AI‑native specialists. Like M&S in 2019, WPP is grappling with structural, not merely cyclical, change. It faces client budget pressure, insourcing of certain capabilities, the gravitational pull of the big platforms, and a bruising few years of profit warnings and downgrades. Under previous leadership it has made steps to simplify its structure and lean into data and technology, but the story has not yet convinced the market. Rose, arriving with a background steeped in technology and platforms, inherits not just a market value and perception to fix, but a story to rewrite. The M&S playbook does not transfer neatly, but there are perhaps some themes. The first is radical portfolio honesty. Just as M&S took a scalpel to the long tail of under‑performing stores, WPP may need to look again at where it is structurally advantaged and where it is not – across agencies, geographies, and capabilities. That will almost certainly mean further consolidation, exits from low‑margin activities, and heavier bets on areas where clients will still pay a premium: true brand strategy, creative that travels culture, high‑end production, complex integrated media, and business‑changing experience design. The second is to treat data and AI less as tools and more as the operating spine. M&S did not simply declare itself omnichannel; it rebuilt its digital offer and loyalty infrastructure so that promises could be delivered in real time. For WPP, that logic translates into an integrated, group‑wide data and AI infrastructure that runs through creative, media and commerce, rather than separate agencies reinventing the wheel. That might include things such as common measurement frameworks, responsibly governed first‑party data partnerships, and a clear strategy around AI that actually improves margins and work quality. A third parallel is around focus and proposition. M&S found its footing again when it stopped apologising for being M&S and doubled down on a distinct, middle‑Britain promise. WPP has an opportunity to stop acting like a fragmented federation and state more clearly what a WPP client should experience that is difficult to replicate elsewhere. Does a WPP engagement feel meaningfully different – faster, more joined‑up, more accountable – versus stitching together a platform, a consulting firm and a production shop? There is also a cultural lesson. M&S’s turnaround was as much about shifting internal mindsets as swapping out signage. Store managers had to be empowered to act on data, buyers to look beyond gut instinct, and central teams to move faster. WPP, spanning tens of thousands of people, will need its own version: incentives that reward collaboration and client outcomes, not only individual agency P&Ls; talent strategies that attract AI‑native creatives and engineers; and an internal narrative that makes the new WPP feel like a place where careers in the future of advertising are built, not where they go to wind down. Finally, there are the questions of time and storytelling. M&S did not pivot in a single year, it learnt to narrate progress convincingly to customers and investors, using proof along the way – store openings that felt new, digital metrics that improved, ranges that sold out for the right reasons. Rose will need to do something similar for WPP: set out a small number of clear, measurable commitments on growth, margin, simplification and client satisfaction, and then report against them in a language that resonates. Can the big holding company operating model evolve as convincingly as a high‑street retail stalwart that once seemed past saving? Will Rose be afforded the time to go on such a journey? Or will Dawn French’s M&S fairy have to lend her wand to the WPP Board? Read more

After weeks on a listening tour, Cindy Rose met investors for the first time as CEO with a stinging set of Q3 results, but also a notably steady hand. Greensquare’s Barry Dudley says her delivery signals a new kind of leadership at WPP. But will that be enough? Just two months into her tenure, WPP chief executive Cindy Rose made her first address to the public markets this week, unveiling Q3 trading results alongside chief financial officer Joanne Wilson. They made for pretty grim reading. The snapshot: reported net sales down 11.1%, like-for-like net sales down 5.9%, guidance for the full year revised downwards to a 5.5%-6% decline in like-for-like net sales (versus the 0%-2% decline that was predicted at the start of the year) and a share price down a thumping 16% by Thursday’s close. Operating margin guidance for the year is ‘around 13%’, which is some way short of Publicis, which is hoping to be slightly over 18%. Sam Anderson has more analysis and a great summary of Rose’s four-point turnaround plan. The outlook is not good. But… there was that breath of fresh air and a genuine, infectious steeliness from both Rose and Wilson that means I am going to be watching their progress with enthusiasm and hope. Why, I hear you ask? The first thing that struck me was the candor in Rose’s opening remarks, acknowledging the performance was “not acceptable” and “weaker than expected”. That’s a pretty standard starting point for an incoming CEO: front everything that’s not great, map out the further pain that’s still to come, so that there are clearer decks for what you then hope to deliver in the future. But I got the sense that there was genuine enthusiasm for grappling with all of this. Publicis has clearly got a lot of things right – The Power of One, how it has embraced data, tech and AI to name a few – but I believe this has all been turbocharged by the gusto and confidence of its irrepressible chairman and CEO, Arthur Sadoun. There’s an intangible value that this kind of leadership adds to a business that I think Rose is going to bring. Next was demonstrating speed of action. Rose said, “We haven’t gone far enough, quickly enough.” There’s a painful cost-cutting side to this that I’m sure is being accelerated as I type, but there are also future-facing moves such as the launch of self-service offering WPP Open Pro. This felt like a very bold, but highly risky move when I first heard the news. My natural assumption was that Open Pro would surely cannibalize existing revenues. The rationale, as Rose explained, is in fact to seek incremental revenues: “This is a strategic move to expand our addressable market and serve the long tail of smaller companies and emerging brands who may not be in the market for the sort of full-service offer that we typically provide to large multinational clients. Open Pro clients can choose to self-serve for some aspects of the marketing workflow and then complement this with a range of managed services from WPP.” Time will tell if this was a smart move, but it was rapid action by someone with a deep tech background, where moving fast and breaking things is still a valid strategy. Doing their homework and research was the next thing that struck me. Rose will have spoken to all manner of senior people within WPP and sought their views and opinions, but the most important conversations will have been with clients. She spoke first to the clients who had chosen to leave WPP and then to the existing clients. And the key conclusion from both camps? They “want the answer to be simpler and more integrated.” WPP has been on the journey towards this for a while now, but perhaps the actions to make this happen will now go up another few gears. ‘Powered by One’ – how about that for a phrase to build around? Bet no one else has anything like that… The second homework learning was client servicing. Rose referenced “service delivery excellence” and “world-class client experience,” which can only come from a “high-performance culture”. She talked passionately about the role of talent in the future and wanting to attract the best there is. Data, tech and AI may all be fundamentals now, but Rose gets that the good old humans are critical too. And what of AI? This week, Microsoft announced that it has invested $35bn in AI in Q3 alone, which is around 8x WPP’s revenues for the quarter. Meta’s capital expenditures for 2025 are now forecast to be between $70bn and $72bn. Astonishing. I think Rose is taking a smart position here, too. Continue to build WPP Open, test and evolve WPP Open Pro, but do these in collaboration and partnership with the tech giants – not in competition with them. Finally, to a criticism, or perhaps I should say to a piece of constructive feedback. Earnings webcasts have a set format and need to convey complex things in a very short space of time in a functional, clear manner. Rose and Wilson did that compellingly, confidently and passionately – not that I’m anyone, but I was impressed. But what really bugged me was the sound quality, which at times was like a lockdown podcast recorded in a bedroom, with Rose sometimes sounding like she was in the next bedroom. It may be a functional thing, but it should still be a premium production that elevates and enhances. I know some people who could help… The Virgoan rant done, I’m looking forward to the WPP rollercoaster that lies ahead… Read more

Green Square’s Nick Berry explores a creative production sector at a crossroads: legacy giants collapsing under their own weight while independents surge ahead. The question now is whether a new wave of VFX and production talent can seize the moment and redefine the industry’s future. Soon after Technicolor collapsed earlier this year, I wrote in The Drum about the potential fallout and the opportunity for a new wave of creative production companies to reimagine the future and fill the void. Six months on, and with the Ciclope Festival taking place in Berlin next week to celebrate craft and creativity across the visual arts, I thought it would be timely to look at the creative production and VFX industry and assess how things are shaping up. Soon after Technicolor closed its doors, Jellyfish Pictures met the same fate, and more recently another longstanding player, Glassworks VFX, also reached the end of the road. On the face of things, this paints a bleak picture for the industry. For Technicolor, servicing its huge debt was a massive challenge, but legacy players that have struggled have common traits, including costly physical technology, infrastructure and teams. This has clearly taken its toll on top of the undeniable impact of Covid, the writers’ strikes and so on. Pressure was also building from smaller, more nimble creative production houses, with lower costs and the ability to scale as required, with the cloud removing traditional capital-intensive barriers to entry. Outsourcing to cheaper locations has also helped the development of skills and capabilities globally, leading to more competition from shops with growing reputations in India and the Far East, as well as South America. With mega-mergers and consolidation within large network groups taking place within the ad industry, a lot has been made recently about the opportunity for independent agencies to flourish. This similarly applies to the creative production sector, where the unrelenting appetite for marketing and entertainment content shows no sign of diminishing. So, there is an exciting and fertile environment for ‘new kids on the block’ to thrive. The nature of the visual arts industry means that new, young talent will always push the boundaries, and if you balance this with experience to navigate briefs, budgets and manage client expectations, you can create an exciting winning formula. This mix of raw talent and experience is evident across the industry, with many independent creative production and VFX houses making hay on the back of technical capability, and agility, as well as creative fearlessness. And compared with a decade ago, it is now commonplace for creative production companies to work directly with brands alongside or instead of ad agencies. This is a sign of confidence in their capability and improved standing in the pecking order. As the new generation of creative production companies becomes the establishment, what can they learn from the legacy players that have fallen by the wayside? Jamie Smith, a partner at Sheridans, a leading media law firm, was general counsel at The Mill from 2012 to 2018, the period that spanned the acquisition by Technicolor. Jamie notes: “The biggest change when The Mill became part of Technicolor was that decision-making became centralized. It remained highly successful, but it was now a large machine. In my view, over time, this slowed the decision-making process and localized teams felt less empowered. “With this, the ability to recognize and reward talent diminished, which to me is the biggest issue with creative, talent-based businesses. You rely on talent, and if not careful, you can start to erode your competitive edge and become open to attack from those who can be more flexible.” To succeed in the current climate, Jamie thinks, “Studio leadership teams need to take strategic decisions looking at the next 12-24 months. Get ahead of technology and always ensure efficiency goes hand in hand with creativity. “I still see studios looking at the short term and not beyond. It’s great if your sales pipeline is strong, but not so good if there is an over-reliance on a client or niche type of work. “You need to be bold with hiring and firing. In its prime, The Mill was good at spotting and nurturing talent as well as making changes if it didn’t work. This not only makes people feel they belong to a great studio, but also that the people they are with are the best of the best.” As with all industries, the threat versus opportunity of AI is a major factor in how the future of creative production will play out. Certain aspects of production will inevitably be replaced, or enhanced and sped up, but this has always been the case in this incredibly dynamic and fast-moving industry. VFX tools have developed exponentially over the decades, and the question of how technology is used to advance creativity is not new. To emphasize this point, in a 1971 interview about the role of synthesizers and technology in their music, Pink Floyd said: “We couldn’t do what we do, as we do it, without it… Things are down to how you control them, and whether you are controlling them, and not the other way around… It’s about using the tools available, when they are available. “It’s like saying, give a man a Les Paul guitar and he becomes Eric Clapton… It’s not true… and give a man an amplifier and a synthesizer, he doesn’t become us.” This is a great mantra for the visual arts industry today, and it gives us reason to be excited and embrace the creative potential that further technological advances will present. As I noted a few months ago, there are lots of exciting creative production and VFX specialists gaining a reputation, some of whom are rising from the ashes of Technicolor, including… Arc Creative, which was formed as The Mill was sinking in the US. This new VFX shop was launched by some of The Mill’s US senior leadership in partnership with Dream Machine FX group. It’s been reported over 100 former Mill workers are now employed by Arc. In April, The Heist, a Thinkingbox company, hired key leaders from The Mill US and 30+ former Mill staffers and opened a new office in Chicago. Thinkingbox has also recently announced the launch of a London office led by former senior staff from The Mill UK and France. Folks, a Pitch Black company, also expanded and opened a studio in London and hired former Technicolor CEO Christian Roberton to lead its UK division, in April 2025. Stray was established in 2024 by former senior leaders from The Mill London, including Misha Stanford-Harris, who had been both MD and VP of Global Production before founding Stray. I caught up with Misha recently to discuss what the future holds for the industry and the factors that will underpin success moving forward. Misha says: “The VFX industry has gone through a recalibration. The technology environment allows startups to compete with larger legacy companies on a more even playing field. This has allowed their creative talent to shine and show their true value to the creative process. “The future is bright for companies that can harness technology with real creative talent driving the narrative. It goes without saying that you need to be nimble and able to pivot, as well as deliver great work! “The key is to offer something unique, and ensure creative collaboration with clients, so that you are integral to the process, not just a service.” In sum, resilience and innovation are fundamental to the visual arts industry, and I believe the future remains hugely positive and exciting. Following a turbulent few months, a celebration of creative excellence at Ciclope next week is important and timely to instill confidence across the industry and remind people of the joy and wonder generated by creative production companies to engage and delight customers and audiences alike. Read more

Barry Dudley examines whether the launch of Horizon Global – a joint venture between Havas and Horizon Media Holdings, bringing together $20bn in combined billings and billed as the first AI-era agency network – is a genuine game-changer for media agencies or just glossy boardroom spin. Horizon Global is to be a new entity focused specifically on “US-centric global client opportunities,” allowing both parent entities to maintain their independence. The profits are split, leadership is shared between New York and Paris, and there is to be a combined tech offer that merges Horizon’s Blu platform with Havas’s Converged.AI to create BluConverged. The timing isn’t coincidental. With Omnicom’s pending acquisition of IPG creating a behemoth with billings reportedly north of $70bn, rumors swirling around Dentsu’s potential sale of its international operations, and WPP with a new CEO, the big holdco landscape is experiencing unprecedented change. Horizon Global is hoping to emerge as an alternative for global marketers who suddenly find their agency options dramatically reduced. Bob Lord, Horizon’s president who now also serves as interim CEO of the joint venture, puts it simply: “There is a lack of client choice out in the marketplace.”

Why this could be genius

The strategic logic behind Horizon Global is compelling on multiple fronts. First, it addresses a fundamental geographic imbalance that has long plagued both agencies. Horizon brings formidable US muscle to Havas, while Havas contributes strong European presence, particularly in France and Spain, to Horizon. Then there is speed to market. Interested clients can pick up the phone and enquire – it exists now. Unlike a full merger, which inevitably involves integration headaches and cultural clashes, Horizon Global will become its own thing while allowing the parent businesses to maintain their existing operations just the way they are. It’s collaboration without the pain of full integration. By contrast, the Omnicom-IPG deal was announced last December and only received FTC approval a few days ago, and even then, it was subject to conditions around commitment to political neutrality. If they get it right, the BluConverged platform will combine years of R&D investment by Havas and Horizon with access to a significantly bigger and deeper data pool. Perhaps most importantly, the timing of all of this capitalizes on market uncertainty. If you were a client who is thinking of pitching their global media business, would you add another network to the list when there aren’t that many candidates to put on the list in the first place? I suspect they might.

The challenges ahead

While Havas and Horizon have $20bn in combined billings, a significant portion will remain in those businesses. As mentioned above, the joint venture is aiming for “US-centric global client opportunities,” so is it clientless until the first of those ‘opportunities’ is converted? And even with the clout and influence of the parents’ $20bn, this is still somewhat dwarfed by the billings of WPP, Publicis and the soon-to-be-combined Omnicom-IPG. Then there is the scale challenge of servicing truly global clients. Although Horizon Global can claim a footprint of over 100 countries, the depth and quality of that coverage inevitably varies significantly from market to market. And while a joint venture may be quicker to make happen than a merger, it is not without its own operational complexities and ongoing challenges. It must navigate the inherent tensions of having two parent companies, with different cultures, strategic priorities and ways of working. The leadership team, split between New York and Paris, will need to maintain constant alignment while managing potentially competing interests. Interim CEO Bob Lord and global COO Renata Spackova both still have their existing day jobs to attend to at Horizon and Havas, respectively.

A missed opportunity

As someone who witnessed first-hand the power of an agency name during my time with a business called Naked, I do wonder if a trick has been missed here. Undoubtedly, there are many factors that make the likes of Mischief, Rethink, Uncommon and Special such unique and successful businesses, but I’ll bet that the name and the ethos that sits behind each of them will have often been a distinguishing pitch-winning factor, overtly or subliminally. But Horizon Global… BluConverged… What’s my suggestion, you ask? ‘The Other One.’ Where client relationships are everything and execution is paramount, even the most elegant partnership structures can crumble if they can’t deliver superior outcomes. Without this, the masterstroke soon becomes a mirage. But one thing is certain: the big media agency landscape just became a little more interesting. Read more