After Omnicom–IPG shake-up, can India’s independent agencies seize the moment?

New Delhi: The shockwaves from the Omnicom–IPG merger have barely settled, yet the Indian advertising ecosystem is already recalibrating itself. Consolidation of this scale often prompts speculation about winners and losers.

But beyond the headlines of scale, integration, and market power, a key question is now shaping conversations across Indian advertising: does this consolidation create new breathing room for independent agencies?

Independent agencies across the country are watching the merger closely. Not because they expect an immediate disruption, but because the power dynamic between holding companies, clients, and talent often shifts quietly before it becomes visible.

As consolidation shrinks the number of global networks competing for business, independents hope this may widen the aperture for their own ambitions. But industry voices caution that the opportunity, while real, is not as linear or guaranteed as it appears.

A closer look reveals five major forces shaping whether independents can gain ground: psychological shifts post-merger, changes in client behaviour, the fragility of the talent-creativity equation, scale limitations, and India’s unique structural complexities.

And together, they form the real story of what the merger means for India’s independent agency ecosystem.

India’s consolidation psychology

In theory, any major shift at the holding-company level sparks fears of restructuring, client migrations and talent churn, all of which could give smaller shops a window of opportunity.

Yet the reactions from India’s creative leaders reveal a more complex picture, one that resists simple predictions and instead spotlights deeper structural flaws in how creativity, talent and clients are distributed in the country.

As Sandeep Goyal, Managing Director, Rediffusion Brand Solutions, pointed out, “there is no major account movement in mergers.” His reminder, grounded in decades of observing agency realignments, sets the tone: the merger may reshape global power, but on the ground in India, relationships rarely rupture overnight.

While the global narrative is about scale, financial synergy and unified capability stacks, India’s reaction is far more emotional and far more local.

Joy Chauhan, Founder, SICK Content Studios, captured the sentiment sharply when he observed that in India, “three big egos will clash” and underscored an old truth: consolidation does not calm the market; if anything, it heightens turf sensitivities.

For Colvyn James Harris, former JWT chief, the broader narrative of consolidation is nothing new. “Nimbleness is a euphemism,” he said, adding that smallness is often romanticised even when it does not translate into long-term capability. He pointed out that the last decade has already seen multiple consolidation arcs, from WPP to dentsu, without any real disruption to client confidence.

Building on that, Goyal noted that during the WPP-WT-Y&R-JWT restructuring, “clients didn’t care as long as the work continued.” What Goyal pointed out is that consolidation is a board-level movement, while clients operate at the output level.

This psychological gap, between what the industry debates and what clients notice, defines India’s consolidation landscape. The Omnicom–IPG move has led to internal anxiety and external speculation, but not client panic.

Decoding shifting behaviour

If clients don’t immediately switch agencies during mergers, what does change?

Independent creative consultant, Nima Dhendup Namchu, believes the more interesting movement is in client behaviour, not client rosters. “Large brands will always go with the networks,” he said, pointing out that scale drives comfort, legacy and process.

However, at the same time, he emphasised the role of “independent creators, project-based collaborations and fractional CMOs” in shaping modern marketing workflows.

This duality is mirrored at the startup end of the market.

Angel Investor and brand strategist Lloyd Mathias, who works closely with high-growth digital businesses, argued that India’s startup ecosystem is naturally aligned with independent talent. He noted that “hot shops” like Schbang, Moonshot, and Talented have become preferred partners because they “understand the full funnel”, something he believes networks struggle to match.

Mathias added that consolidation will not magically fix the structural lag within large agencies. “Legacy segmentation of solutions” is still a constraint, he said, pointing out that AI investments won’t get the industry far unless thinking itself evolves.

Together, these viewpoints illustrate a shift: clients are no longer choosing between networks and independents. They are choosing combinations. Networks for governance and breadth; independents for agility, craft and outcome-focused execution.

What networks optimise and independents protect

Creativity sits at the heart of the debate, not because the merger threatens it, but because networks and independents nurture it in fundamentally different ways. And the Omnicom-IPG consolidation has made that contrast more visible than ever.

Veteran creative director KV Sridhar (Pops) took this head-on. For him, the merger is simply another reminder that holding companies “treat creativity as scale,” whereas independents treat it as a core mission. He argued that the real pioneers of Indian advertising were those who built for passion, not profit, and warned that big companies often confuse management efficiency with creative excellence.

He also highlighted a gap in the nurturing of creative talent within networks, suggesting that independents still carry the responsibility of grooming the next generation.

His assertion that there is now a “free meal” opportunity for independents, a phrase intended to illustrate how much room there is to grab business, reflects a resurgent belief that creativity regains value whenever structures become too layered.

Chauhan echoed the sentiment in a different form. For him, the market has witnessed a phase where networks increasingly “chased business,” which led to the “commoditisation of creativity”. He warned of “talent erosion” within large networks and contrasted this with independent agencies that run lean, stay profitable and have sharper creative identities.

But even he acknowledged that their limitation is scale. Networks still have the muscle for large clients, extensive deliverables and multi-market governance, capabilities that independents simply cannot replicate.

The tension is clear: creativity flows more freely in independents, but delivery power still resides with networks. The merger does not change that equation overnight. If anything, it reinforces it.

Can small truly scale big?

The Omnicom–IPG consolidation narrative highlighted another question: can independents scale beyond a certain point, or do they inevitably plateau?

Goyal has the clearest answer. Independent agencies, he said, follow a “five- to seven-year lifecycle.” During this period, founders remain deeply involved, ensuring service quality. But once they move into expansion mode or pursue multiple interests, “service declines.”

This predictability of lifecycle explains why even strong independents eventually sell, merge or enter alliances and why holding companies still dominate at scale.

Harris added an important nuance. He recalled the JWT (2012–15) scenario, noting that even when the big networks undergo internal churn, smaller shops still face limitations in “capability and vision.” He referenced Taproot, a beloved independent that eventually became part of a network, as proof that success stories often end with integration, not isolation.

Despite these constraints, Lloyd Mathias believes independents currently have a structural advantage. They can respond faster, are less siloed and bring more holistic thinking, he said, especially when working with digital-first brands.

Namchu added that independents have found a strong foothold through project-based work. Fractional CMOs and specialised creative collaborations have widened the canvas for them, a trend that is likely to accelerate as clients become more experiment-friendly.

Chauhan remains optimistic but realistic. Yes, independents “have business run after them,” he said, but their growth is capped by the need for deeper infrastructure, talent depth and process layering.

The post-merger environment, then, is not a free highway for independents. It is a more open window, but only for those prepared to professionalise without losing their creative sharpness.

Why global playbooks don’t fit India’s market puzzle

India’s uniqueness in the global advertising landscape cannot be overstated, and Harris articulated it strongly. He said that India is functioning very differently compared to other markets and that things here “are working very differently,” whether it is pricing, client expectations or regional demand.

This matters because most global mergers are evaluated on scale efficiencies and process synergies. But India tends to reward entrepreneurial thinking, risk-friendly leadership and market-driven agility. This is why independent agencies often thrive here despite structural vulnerabilities. The market itself supports chaos and creativity.

Goyal’s observations reinforce this. He said that even when conflicts arise, networks simply create “clean teams” and continue servicing clients. For him, the India question is less about consolidation outcomes and more about continuity: as long as work does not stop, clients will not move.

This, paradoxically, is what gives independents room to grow. They don’t need to replace networks; they only need to take over the gaps where networks are too large, too slow or too distracted.

Opportunity, not overthrow

The Omnicom-IPG merger will not upend India’s advertising order in one decisive sweep. It will not trigger mass client migration, nor will it topple network dominance. The experts are near-unanimous on this.

What it will do, however, is accelerate existing fault-lines:

• Clients are fragmenting their needs

• Talent is gravitating towards purpose-driven creative cultures

• Independents are strengthening their proposition

• Networks are becoming more cost-conscious and process-heavy

In this landscape, independents do not automatically win, but they are better placed than they have ever been. As Pops reminded, creativity is not a by-product; it is the centre. And as consolidation thickens, the industry may rediscover that truth the hard way.

The post-merger India story is not about giants merging; it is about the quiet rediscovery of creative ambition. And in that rediscovery, independents may find the most room to rise.