Commentary

Your Agency Is Officially A Seller -- Time To Start Treating Them Like One

by Maarten Albarda , Featured Contributor, March 20, 2026

The Association of National Advertisers released its latest report on principal media this week. If you have been following my columns here for the last few years, you know I have a... let's call it a "complicated" relationship with this topic. I have warned about the erosion of the agency-as-agent model and the slippery slope of arbitrage. But I also recognize that for some advertisers, under the right circumstances, principal media might, could, maybe, possibly offer benefits. Maybe.

The report, called "The Continued Acceleration of Principal Media," is a follow-up from the ANA’s initial report on the topic, published in May of 2024. It reports that 58% of marketers used principal media in the past year, a jump from 47% in 2024.

Forrester predicts that by the end of this year, a full third of all media agency billings will be principal-based. That makes it a standard pillar of agency profitability.

In context, let’s look at the Omnicom/IPG merger. That deal effectively doubled the new entity's media buying power. When you have that much scale, you aren't just an "agent" anymore; you are a market maker.

So, the slope has slipped. But what the ANA 2026 edition of this report also reveals is that, while marketers are becoming more familiar with the monster, they are also getting lazier about guarding the door.

Apparently, "familiarity" with principal media is creating a worrisome kind of complacency. We now have 96% of marketers saying they are familiar with principal media, up from 87%. We understand that the agency is acting as a retailer, buying inventory and reselling it to us at a markup.

Despite this awareness, the use of actual guidelines to manage the beast has decreased from 62% to 57%. So, while the practice becomes more widespread, formal oversight is shrinking. A full 90% of marketers are worried that the media being recommended to them is in the agency’s best interest, not theirs (coming from 79% in the previous study). And 43% of marketers are essentially saying, "I'm pretty sure my agency is force-feeding me inventory they need to move, but... hey, look at that low CPM!"

Seventy-six percent of marketers say low cost is the top benefit. And in a world where procurement is squeezing every cent out of agency fees, I get the lure for agencies, too. Agencies are bundling their fees into the media price to make "non-working" costs disappear (on paper). It makes the CFO happy, but it makes the audit far more difficult (and in the case of some agency contracts, impossible).

So, what should you do? First, stop treating your agency like a traditional partner when they are working like a vendor. If they are selling you "owned" inventory, the rules of engagement must change. Only 63 % of marketers have contracts that address principal media. If yours doesn't, you're essentially giving your agency a blank check. Instead, start with the ANA’s Master Media Buying Services template, which is included in the report.

Require senior-level sign-off (CMO or head of media) for every principal buy. And demand options. Never accept a plan that is 100% principal media. Your agency should always provide a transparent alternative so you can see exactly what you are trading away for that "reduced cost."

Now that we have slipped on the slope, marketers must ensure that it works for them -- and not just for the agency's shareholders.

4 comments about "Your Agency Is Officially A Seller -- Time To Start Treating Them Like One".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Tony Jarvis from Olympic Media Consultancy, March 22, 2026 at 7:18 p.m.
When advertisers understand that CPM stands for "Completely Positively Mad" and worse when not based on people-based measures of attention, i.e. avoid "viewable impression" device-based metrics, the impact of their media investments as part of their overall marketing efforts, will assuredly drive more cost effective brand campaign outcomes.
Reply

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, March 23, 2026 at 10:25 a.m.

Maarten, you are quite right that any marketer who doesn't have a comtract in place with its ad agency to deal with "principal media" is making a huge mistake.

But there's much more to this story.

With everybody consolidating--the media, marketers and ad agencies-- it is possible now for an agency with a number of accounts who use a particular type of media--be it CTV, digital video or display, social media, radio, etc. to combine all of their "budgets" for that media type into a single large buy and approach a seller with the intent to earn a larger CPM discount than each client would have gotten buying on its own.

If this is done openlly, with full disclosure and auditing, the agency would have negotiated a deal with each participating client which guarantees them an extra saving--say its 10%----in return earning a predetermined extra fee for this service of, say, 3%. If such a deal is properly set up, with all of the clients actng in unison, with full disclosure and the agency's incomes closely audited, what's wrong with such an operation.? Many advertisers have been doing exactly the same thing--with their brands ---in TV's upfronts for decades. The main objection being how the goodies are being parcelled out--and at what CPMs --to each "partner".

The advertiisers often handle such matters via computerized allocation models in a reasonable and fair manner--why not the same with "principal media"?

The key is getting a client to be really involved with media--and the failure to do this is what causes all of the agency bashing and carping about "principal media"--as if its just another way for those evil ad agencies to "swindle" their clients and "ruin" their media buys.

There's a lot to be gained from "principal media" buying and selling---if it's executed the right way.

Maarten Albarda from Flock Associates (USA), March 23, 2026 at 11:06 a.m.

The key sentence in Ed's comment is "with full disclosure and auditing". The problem appears to be that even when that is in the contract, many agencies have different and/or additional deals that are obscured from the auditors. And advertisers have slid backwards in implementing or mandating such transparency guidelines. These two issues combined are the cause of the ANA's alarm.

As I wrote: maybe, sometimes, additionally (and not principally), principal media could be part of a lucrative deal for an advertiser. Sadly, the circumstances for that to play out were bad and are now worse.

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, March 23, 2026 at 11:34 a.m.

Exactly, Maarten.

Just having a ccontract requiring full disclosure without a much more specific definition of what each line item is and how it is to be audited, isn't good enough. The agency can "hide" fees it is earning by calling tem something else. How many clients have the kind of "media" staffs that can ride herd on such an operation?

What I am recommending is a far more aggressive stance by advertisers seeking lower CPMs above all else--and there are plenty of them--with much greater hands on involvement in the process. Indeed I woulde reccomend that a consortium of like minded agency clients be formed to deal with the agency as full fledged "partners" in such an operation. The two groups would decide what seller --or sellers--are best to do business with, how much the agency earns as its fee, how such incomes are audited, how the spoils are to be allocated among the clients and how the final rekoning--or post buy analysis--- is to be done--all with total transparency.

Sadly, Maarten, you are probably right about this being too much to ask these days, considering how uninvolved senior client management is with the media buying function.