The Agency by Agency Atlas 2026 Agency ownership

A tiny proportion of agencies have an outsized influence 

The holding companies account for just 0.6% of active agencies in the UK. That figure is the starting point for almost every other finding in this chapter, because what follows is a consistent story of a tiny group of businesses that, by workforce, revenue and productivity, punch dramatically above their numerical weight.

Holding company agencies employ 15.2% of the sector’s workforce and generate 23.5% of its turnover, ratios that reflect the scale advantages of global network membership. Their GVA per head of £115,323 is well above both the sector average (£94,452) and the independent average (£91,468), while their average growth rate of 5.0% outpaces the sector average of 3.5%, with a higher proportion of fast-growing agencies than the independent cohort.

“The sector’s identity, whether that is culturally, commercially or geographically, is defined by its independent majority.”

— The Agency by Agency Atlas 2026

Independent agencies shape our perception of what the sector is

Holding company agencies account for 0.6% of all active UK agencies, with independent agencies making up the remaining 99.4%. In raw numbers, this means the entire holding company presence in the UK agency sector comprises a relatively small group of businesses, but their individual scale is such that their collective contribution far exceeds what their numbers imply. 

At the same time, the near-totality of the sector by business count is independent, which shapes everything from the distribution of entrepreneurial risk to the character of the agency communities that have developed in cities across the UK and even the mood music of the sector online. The sector’s identity, whether that is culturally, commercially or geographically, is defined by its independent majority.

Less than two hundred agencies employ one in seven of the workforce

With 0.6% of agencies, holding company businesses employ 15.2% of the agency workforce. Independent agencies employ the rest. The implied average size difference between the two groups is significant as a holding company agency employs, on average, roughly 38 times as many people as an independent agency. This reflects the structural character of holding company operations as large, integrated businesses with multiple practice areas, support functions and global delivery infrastructure, rather than simply a difference in client scale. 

For the workforce, the implication is that a meaningful share of agency careers, particularly at the senior and specialist end, are shaped by the culture, processes and career structures of a small number of very large businesses whose ownership often sits outside the UK.

The turnover gap is wider than the workforce would suggest

The holding company turnover share of 23.5% is notably higher than their 15.2% workforce share, implying higher average revenue per employee than the independent sector delivers. Independent agencies generate 76.5% of total sector turnover. The gap between workforce share and turnover share for holding company agencies reflects several structural advantages: access to large, multinational clients with significant budgets; the ability to cross-sell services across network agencies; retainer relationships that provide revenue predictability at scale; and, in the case of media agencies within holding groups, the inclusion of client media spend in turnover figures. 

Independent agencies, by contrast, are more likely to be working with mid-market clients at lower average contract values, which is arguably a structural difference in market position rather than a simple measure of capability.

Independent agencies have lower GVA per head, but both groups make major contribution to UK economy

The productivity advantage, when measured by GVA per head, of holding company agencies (£115,323) compared to independent agencies (£91,468) is not insignificant, but it needs to be understood in context. The gap reflects scale, specialism mix and the commercial infrastructure that global network membership provides. The independent sector’s lower per-head figure masks enormous internal variation, from micro-agencies generating well below the average to large independent groups that match or exceed holding company productivity. 

Across the sector as a whole, independence is the norm, and the collective GVA these agencies generate (£15.1bn) is a substantial contribution to the UK creative economy’s impact.

Holding companies grow faster, but their distribution is more polarised

Holding company agencies record an average growth rate of 5.0%, meaningfully above the sector average of 3.5%. The fact that independent agencies make up 99.4% of active agencies means that, unsurprisingly, their average growth rate aligns with the overall sector average.

The growth traffic light, however, reveals an interesting story when we look at the distribution of holding company agencies across the different growth bands. While 14.2% of holding company agencies are growing fast (above 20%) and 13.4% are growing at between 10% and 20%, their stable cohort is notably smaller: 61.4%, compared to 70.3% for independent agencies. 

Holding company agencies are also marginally more likely to be shrinking at a moderate rate (7.9% versus 7.3% for independents). The picture is of a group that is both more dynamic and more volatile than the independent sector, with a higher ceiling and a slightly more exposed floor.

Investment and innovation funding flows to the independents

Independent agencies attract 96.6% of all investment funding into the sector, with holding company agencies receiving just 3.4%. This reflects the fundamental difference in how the two groups access capital. Holding company agencies are subsidiaries of publicly listed global businesses with access to group balance sheets, debt facilities and equity markets that make external investment funding redundant. 

Independent agencies, by contrast, can draw on external capital to finance growth, acquisitions and capability investment, and the 96.6% figure represents the near-totality of that activity.

The subject of investment funding, in contrast, seems less easy to explain for structural reasons and is perhaps therefore a little more intriguing. Independent agencies receive 99.0% of all Innovate UK funding flowing to the sector. Is this because holding company agencies typically have access to internal R&D budgets, global innovation programmes and proprietary technology development that reduces both the need for, and the appetite to engage with, public innovation grant processes?

Agency ownership and questions for the sector

For anyone engaged with policy or interested in understanding the broader dynamics that shape the agency sector, the most significant implication of this chapter may be what it confirms rather than what it reveals. For example, if the UK Industrial Strategy’s engagement with the creative industries is shaped by the sector’s most visible players and holding company agencies with their global profiles, London presence and direct government relationships, it would be sidelining the parts of the sector where effectively all of the investment and innovation activity that public policy is designed to support is taking place. 

If industrial strategy is to serve the agency sector rather than its most prominent subset, it needs to be designed with the independent sector’s realities, from specialisation to geographic distribution, at its centre, not its periphery.

The holding companies’ 0.6% share of agencies but 23.5% share of turnover is, in one sense, simply a reflection of scale. But it also raises a deeper question about concentration and resilience. A sector in which nearly a quarter of revenue is controlled by global businesses headquartered outside the UK is a sector whose fortunes are partly determined by decisions made in boardrooms in New York, Paris and Tokyo. 

As the Industrial Strategy seeks to build a more robust and self-sustaining UK creative economy, the relationship between the independent sector’s vitality and the holding companies’ structural dominance of revenue is a tension worth monitoring.