The David versus Goliath battle goes another round

Your editorial seemed to suggest that small is best (Comment, DW 20 March). Sometimes this is the case, but not always. The advantage of scale and agility is nearly always best.

Scale can have real client advantages. Which smaller groups are able to form teams of graphic retail and product designers, account managers, sector specialists from three or four geographic markets or brand analytic consultants who are instantly available for specific client assignments?

How many small UK groups working overseas really have local knowledge rather than just a UK-centric view of life?

How many small groups have the advantage of having 25 trendspotters around the world who produce futures reports that help to bring ideas and innovation to clients? None I would suggest. And how many small groups invest in developing new products and thinking for the industry or in training their people? Very few.

How often are the smaller groups charging premium prices to their clients because they genuinely believe they have the best product, rather than undercutting others on fees?

The big groups have many issues of their own, not least of them integrating smaller acquisitions. However at the end of the day our clients are the judges of value. The bigger groups are where they are because their clients pay for the services they offer.

Or am I missing something?

Charles Trevail

Chief executive EMEA

FutureBrand

London SE1