What does it really mean to be a “small” agency?

A founder with a few freelancers calls themselves a small agency.

A 200-person firm serving global clients might say the same because compared to holding companies and networks, they are.

Some people look at:

• Headcount (under 50? under 200?)

• Revenue (<$5M? <$20M?)

• Client type or reach

• Operational complexity

• Org chart (exec leadership team? C-suite?)

But here's a different way to frame it:

When agency owners say they want to “stay small,” what are they really saying?

Often, it’s not about resisting growth, and definitely not resisting the potential dollars that come with it.

It’s about resisting the side effects of growth:

• More bureaucracy

• Internal politics

• Layers of approval

• High payroll pressure

• The fear of becoming a place they wouldn’t want to work at

They don’t want to lose the speed, clarity, and control that comes with being small.

But here’s the thing:

I’ve seen 15-person teams that feel scaled and durable.

And I’ve seen 100-person agencies that feel chaotic and fragile.

So maybe it’s not about size at all.

It’s about the systems, the culture, the level of founder involvement, and whether you’ve built something that works without grinding everyone down.

When we talk about “small” or “scaled,” we’re not talking about headcount.

We’re talking about design choices.

What kind of agency are you looking to design?