Compete with?

Can you help in clearing the following paragraph?


"In the meantime, Fallon had been acquired again - this time by Publicis Grouppe. Although it had been forced to close its New York office, which was effectively competing with the Minneapolis agency, Fallon had opened a London branch in 1998 and was keen to develop a small international network. Backing from the French group gave it the clout to do so."

Do remember that the "Minneapolis agency" is Fallon, not Publicis. Publicis is from France.

So,
1. Fallon closed its office in New York prior to the merger.
2. Fallon's NY office was an effective rival to Minneapolis agency and this "Minneapolis agency" is Fallon again.

Is this what the author means?

Fallon competes with Fallon?

Can you offer a clue?

Fallon: purchased by Publicis Grouppe
(Closed it's NY office but opened one in London.)

Minneapolis agency: You say it was a branch of Fallon too, but there is NOTHING in the paragraph you wrote that confirms this. Perhaps you read in a prior paragraph that the "Minneapolis agency" was Fallon.

If you are certain that the Minneapolis agency was Fallon, then the author means to say that the two agencies (New York and Minneapolis) were BRANCHES of the same company (Fallon) and they were competing against each other. It could certainly mean that they were both in competition with the same products and trying to win the same clients, BUT IT IS MORE LIKELY that it simply means they were both equally successful in earning high revenues or in making good profits.