Comments on: Bigger Ain’t Better

By: Mike Sacks

Mike Sacks — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:19:31 +0000

Cody makes some good points, if he could provide some evidence instead of rash generalizations.

In theory, some of his argument makes sense. Sure, smaller agencies are more nimble and can take a stronger interest in nurturing talent.

As far as thought leaders coming from smaller independents because the big boys are afraid to speak out, that is patently ridiculous.

The smaller guys sometimes tout size as a strength to the point it becomes a crutch.

By: Mike Driehorst

Mike Driehorst — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:27:05 +0000

That’s true in most, if not every industry. The bigger companies have more beaurocratic levels to get through to make a decision. Small and indie firms are more agile and the decision-makers have closer ties with customers and the marketplace.

In PR for example, look at those blogging (still something new). It’s primarily the smallish or medium-sized, independent firms. Edelman is only involved because Richard E. saw an opportunity and bought up some well-known and established bloggers. Some other larger PR firms have done the same.

By: Lucas

Lucas — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:12:19 +0000

It makes sense for smaller companies to succeed. Smaller = more agile, more client-focused.

That said, it seems that many successful small firms end up turning into juggernauts as a result of their success. More and bigger accounts lead to the need to hire a few more people, which leads to taking on a couple more accounts, which leads to hiring more people, ad infinitum.

You might have seen this post by Seth Godin that talks about the smallization (I just made that up, thank you very much) of business in general. It’s good complimentary reading to Steven’s piece.