We've been hearing this for a long time....Especially now with AI-everywhere, and the argumentation is always something like: ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐๐ถ๐พ๐๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฟ๐บ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐-๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐๐ฝ๐ ๐๐ถ๐น๐น ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐น๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ด๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต ๐ฝ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ผ ๐๐น๐ผ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐
But this assumes that "first-mover advantage" is the only metric that matters.
History tells a different story. Here are two reasons why i don't see big players going away:
1) ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐๐ผ๐น๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐: Big agencies don't always need to be first, they just need to be good at scaling. With extensive budgets and resources they can observe the pioneers, learn from their mistakes and build or buy refined AI solutions across their global portfolios rapidly.
2) ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฟ ๐ฏ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ป๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐: In high-stakes business, brand name matters. Similar to management consultancies, big agencies are often hired as professional insurance. Yes, of course the research needs to be solid, but thereโs a reason the saying "No one ever got fired for hiring IBM" exists.... Big brand names provides a safety net for corporate decision-makers (and their careers!). Rational? Maybe not. Reality? Often yes
AI will transform the work, but it wonโt eliminate the need for institutional trust and global scale. Big agencies will survive as long as they keep evolving.
Related Articles
Want to discuss further?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic.
Get in Touch

