Marketing Direct's ever watchful Noelle McElhatton reports that "profits at independent agencies fell 37% in 2007" according to the latest Kingston Smith report. On the face of it, this is 'bad news'. Despite notable exceptions - Kitcatt Nohr and Partners reported a 20% increase in profits - the inference is that we independents are not managing our businesses well.

But in credit crunch Britain, would you rather be working for - or with - an independent agency that can react flexibly to a recession or a group subsidiary where a diktat is issued from New York to cut 10% from all staff costs, irrespective of ability or local need? Would you feel more confident working with a company that is obliged to retain its supertanker-slow global structures, processes and procedures despite the fact the recession demands a nimbler, more cost-effective, response?

Maybe some of the independent agencies are taking a bit of a hit on profit as client belts are tightened. Why? Because we can. We are not obliged to deliver a specific figure to a group board. We can take the decision to invest - to maintain service levels and retain key staff, so we are well placed to benefit when the climate improves. Nor are we obliged to be limited or rigid in the way we charge for work.

We will soon see the knock-on effects of big group agencies aggressively cutting costs, if we are not already. Clients will despair of work being turned around slowly, at pre-recession prices, delivered with poor service and errors. Waves of redundancies have an effect on morale and service levels that last far longer than short term cost-cutting. Suddenly, that 10% saving is looking very expensive.