Commentary

Big, Bigger, Omnicom

by Maarten Albarda , Featured Contributor, 6 hours ago

When the ink dried on the Omnicom-IPG deal last week (late November) ,it meant the end of an era: the Big Four agency holding companies are now officially the Big Three, and the IPG ticker is history. I feel this one personally, as I worked for IPG from… oh, let me not date myself too much. Let’s go with “I worked there at one time for four years across two continents” (London and New York, to be precise).

I worked for Universal McCann in both locations, and they were very much part of my formative years (another eight years prior to UM were spent at Leo Burnett, another brand that exists in a very different format today, now called “Leo”).

It appears to me that within this enormous consolidation, Omnicom is playing a game of “agency brand Darwinism”: killing some of its legacy brands in favor of the perceived powerhouses. So, gone are brands like MullenLowe, DDB (merged into TBWA), and the IPG Mediabrands corporate layer. Surviving (for now) are UM, OMD, PHD, and McCann (Creative).

Why is UM a keeper? Well, I'm in the trenches at any of the stakeholders, but I’m guessing it is because UM has equity. It has clients like J&J and Coca-Cola (historically) that bought into the UM brand, and Omnicom isn't stupid; it isn’t t going to erase a brand that CMOs trust.

But the overall Omnicom agency holding company "spine" is obviously changing. While the name on the door remains Universal McCann, the engine is being swapped out. The biggest synergy play appears to be data. Omnicom is forcing everything onto its Omni operating system. The legacy IPG data stack (Acxiom, etc.) is being stripped and fed into Omni.

Another fallout: 4,000+ jobs cut, mostly in back-office and "duplicative" middle management. And then there's the "client conflict" elephant in the room. With UM now sitting next to OMD and PHD under one massive Omnicom Media umbrella, the potential client conflict map just lit up like a Christmas tree (Chanukah menorah?).

But it's undoubtedly true that Omnicom can now lay claim to unprecedented buying power. It controls a staggering percentage of global ad spend. For a client, this should mean better media rates -- or at least, they should be promised. In my mind (and as I have written before), size matters for global reach, back-office efficiencies, automation cost, data management and principal media deals. Size matters less for clients focused on brand equity building, transparency and building meaningful connections with their consumers.

“Bigness” is helpful when you yourself are big (as a client). But if you’re a UM client or a client of any of the other entities within the mighty new Omnicom machine, you are now competing for attention within its massive roster. The merger is a CFO’s and shareholder’s dream and a potential marketer’s nightmare. The focus for the next 12 months, at any of the Omnicom 2.0 entities, will be margin protection. After all, they must justify that $13 billion price tag.

This means you are wise to review your scope and deliverables as an Omnicom 2.0 client. Its principals might be all excited about their newly formed enormousness, and may have even convinced you it's a good thing. But for marketers, the truth of that promise will only become visible over the next 12 to 18 months.

3 comments about "Big, Bigger, Omnicom".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, December 5, 2025 at 12:46 p.m.
Maarten, yes, they will try to maximize profit--like any other company, including all of their clients. But that doesn't mean that their clients will be getting lousy creative or brand positioning from those shops within the corporate structure that handle this function. Nor does the holding company's "clout" in ad spend mean that individual clients will get screwed re targeting or reach or anything else in media buying. That depends on how well the client works with the media agency it hires to do media for it. If an untrained or unqualified media team is assigned to your account, client, demand a change--and you will get it. If you are not paying attention to media, that's also on you, not just "them".

Sorry, Maarten, I think that calling this a "nightmnare" for marketers--aka this holding compny's clients--is a gross exagerration.
Reply

Arthur Tauder from Thunderhouse, December 5, 2025 at 4:10 p.m.

I believe the Omnicom Massacre earlier this week was a travesty for our Marketing Communications industry. It scrambled Agency brands & talent, and it sacrificed human capital (4000+ jobs impacting 4000+ families) in an industry where human capital, both client facing and support, is mission critical. There are no obvious client benefits nor stated strategic objectives, merely sacrificing Agency brands and people to satisfy the financial parameters of institutional shareholders and the self-serving enrichment the Interpublic top management.

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, December 5, 2025 at 5:25 p.m.

The key point is not that this merger doesn't help clients but, rather that it causes them great harm. As I pointed out in my reply, will someone please explain what harm will be done to client ad campaigns. Why must everything an agency does be only for its clients' benefit?Why can't an agency chart its own course--rightly or wrongly?

Of course it's sad about the closing of agecies with famous names and histories as well as the loss of many jobs. And getting too big can cause management and coordination issues. But the same thing happens when marketers morph into giagintic holding companies--why aren't we concerned about that?