Ten years ago the claim I want to make would have sounded ridiculous, and I would rather set it down carefully than leave it hanging as a slogan.
For a lot of small projects, one person can now do the work that used to take an agency, a development team, and an IT consultant.
It helps to remember why there were three in the first place. You hired an agency for brand and design. You hired developers because the agency could draw things it could not build. You hired an IT consultant because nobody in the first two groups understood the systems the business actually ran on. Three contracts, three sets of assumptions, and the owner in the middle, translating.
That middle is where the money tends to go. Not to the work, but to the seams. The meeting to prepare for the meeting. The rebuild because the design was not buildable. The automation that never happened because it fell in the gap between what the developer thought was in scope and what the consultant assumed someone else had handled.
One person holding all three does not have those seams. That is most of the argument. The brand decision gets made by the person who will build it. The build gets made by the person who understands the systems it has to talk to. Nothing gets handed off, so less gets lost in the handing.
The honest part. This is not the right shape for volume. If you need forty pages by Friday and three people working in parallel, an agency is the better call, and I would say so on the first phone call.
What I can offer instead is one mind on the whole thing, from the first conversation to the thing running in production, and one person to answer for all of it. For some owners, that is exactly the part they had been missing.