Making sense of mergers 🧩
Agency mergers are no longer a novelty in PR, but familiarity has not made their outcomes any more predictable in a sector where culture and talent remain crucial.
When people wonder why agency mergers are treated with suspicion, it may be worth pointing out that such occasions are hardly unfamiliar anymore. Once upon a time, a Weber Group combining with Shandwick and BSMG — for example — was enough to spark a measure of surprise.
These days, the news that two of the world's top 10 PR firms are coming together is greeted with more of a collective shrug. After BCW, FGS, Burson, MSL and myriad other marcomms agency mergers, we have become increasingly conditioned to expect consolidation at the bigger end of the scale. Golin and Ketchum, one suspects, will not be the last example of this trend — even if the gradual disappearance of storied PR brands can be a difficult pill to swallow.
The financial logic that underpins publicly-held holding groups tells us as much. Simplification is the name of the game these days, with investors seeking a clear story around AI, data and technology. If scale does still matter, then it makes sense to get bigger as quickly as possible — bringing whatever benefits still accrue in terms of branding, capabilities and investment.
Crucially, we are also familiar with the results of agency mergers, and they are not often pretty. There are plenty of studies that tell us why so many mergers fail. In the consultancy world, where people remain the primary asset, the risks appear to be exponentially magnified.
