But this feels a bit glib.  So let’s weigh up both sides of the argument.

Strategists (like me) will tell you that the increasing fragmentation of media, coupled with the more fundamental changes that new channels are making on the way people consume media in the first place, mean that it’s far more difficult than ever to get consumers’ attention.  To do this you need a strong strategy that’s ownable, scalable and differentiating in your market.  It’s got to be based on a brand promise and a consumer truth that come together to make your proposition forceful enough to cut through the clutter and make consumers want to spend time with your brand.  Oh, and with all this media, it’s much easier to get it wrong these days.

OK.

Buying teams will argue, on the other hand, that as media ownership consolidates, in order to extract the best value from the market, agencies need to have comparable scale.  Their argument has rightly moved on from ‘price’ (still hugely important), to ‘value’.  Big agencies can, and do, negotiate vast amounts of added value for their clients, from bespoke research to preferable terms on distress inventory and access to new and developing channels.

Many smaller agencies will rubbish these arguments, claiming that ‘big’ agencies simply channel their investment into ‘traditional’ channels as that’s how they’re paid.  This is nonsense, first because such repayment models are increasingly the exception rather than the rule, but more importantly because it does clients themselves a massive disservice.  They are not stupid, and would spot any such manoeuvring a mile off.

So, who’s right?

Well, we are fond of insisting (rightly) that marketing is an investment, not a cost.  As any investor will tell you have to buy the right thing at the right price.  One of the two is no good.

Toby Roberts, Head of Strategy, OMD UK