Just The FACs, Ma'am: ANA Unveils Its Own New Ad Tax

After nearly a decade of blowing the whistle about the so-called “ad tax” – fees paid to data and ad-tech middlemen that cut into working media dollars – the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) introduced its own version of one that will be charged to advertisers using its new crossmedia measurement platform Aquila.

“It’s called the ‘Fractional Advertising Contribution’,” Aquila CEO Bill Tucker explained during an update on the platform, which operates as a separate for-profit subsidiary of the not-for-profit ANA.

Tucker said the ANA board approved the new media-buying fee, which goes by the acronym “FAC,” as a way to ensure that Aquila "had an ongoing sustainable funding mechanism."

"We can’t build this platform and have every year or every other year finding people who need to find money to pay for it," he explained to the ANA financial management attendees, adding: "So the decision was made to have a durable, ongoing payment system. And the decision was made to have it funded, ultimately, inside the media budget."

advertisement

advertisement

To date, Aquila has been funded primarily by "tens of millions of dollars" provided by walled-garden platform partners -- Amazon, Google, Meta and more recently iHeartRadio and TikTok -- which have also contributed proprietary data that helps power the crossmedia analytics that enable Aquila to provide empirical reach-and-frequency estimates for their TV and digital advertising buys.

In its 2024 tax filing, the first to account for Aquila, the ANA reported the crossmedia measurement platform already represented about 11% of the ANA’s total asset value for that year.

The ANA also reported $14,432,500 in income for Aquila on total ANA revenue less expenses of -$1,759,885.

While Tucker did not disclose what ANA members are paying in annual or biannual licensing fees to utilizes Aquila he said there was a financial “benefit” to committing to it this year.

As for the FAC fee payment system, Tucker said it would be processed as part of media buys processed through an end-to-end system developed with tech partner Mediaocean, and that it would be a low percentage of billings with a cap and that by 2027 the system would operate “frictionless” comparing it to an automated highway toll payment system.

“The vision is to have it be EZ Pas status by 2027,” he said, adding, “Well be transitioning to this fractional advertising contribution.”

As for the fee structure, Tucker said the FAC fee will be 0.075% of the cost of media buys, “with a cap of $750,000.

“So if you’re a billion-dollar advertiser, you pay $750,000. If you’re over a billion dollars, you pay $750,000.”

While it’s unclear how many ANA members may ultimately subscribe to Aquila, the association currently has about 1,600 members.

2 comments about "Just The FACs, Ma'am: ANA Unveils Its Own New Ad Tax".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Tony Jarvis from Olympic Media Consultancy, May 5, 2026 at 9:20 p.m.

    Levying a "tax" on media data users of a measurement system based on ad spend/or ad revenues is not new.  However, what is surely peculiar for a supposedly media neutral media data/analytics service, is that Aquila is a for-profit entity, supported heavily by the walled gardens technopolies, whilst a division of a not-for-profit industry organisation.  This structure raises possible conflict of interest and data bias questions at a minimum.  Joe, back to you.  

  2. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, May 6, 2026 at 7:03 a.m.

    In effect, advertisers will now pay for this service, which makes sense to me.

    As for how it is determined how much they pay and whether the advertiser pays whether it wants to or not, that isn't clear. Does everybody pay? And does this apply to traditional media--like broadcast TV--or just to digital media--like CTV, social media, etc.?

    Also, if it's a "tax" levied by the ANA on all video advertising, doesn't Nielsen ----and other measurement companies which would compete with Aquila--- have a competitive fairness issue here. 

    In short, is this "tax" approach legal? Will it stand up in the courts if it does not allow advertisers or media sellers to opt out?Can Nielsen and others challenge it as being biased, funding-wise, in favor of the ANA's  interests?

    It will be most interesting to see how this "tax" approach plays out.

Next story loading loading..