Is the era of media transparency officially over?
Increasingly, a segment of adland tells marketers not to worry about media transparency. TrinityP3’s Stephen Wright has some concerns with their argument.
Nick Manning was again ringing the bell on principal media trading and the issue of media transparency on Linkedin last week.
He noted that the well regarded data and research firm, Madison and Wall, had made the following observation in their analysis of IPG’s global results: “…because essentially all large clients by now accept that their agencies participate in these activities, additional growth opportunities will surely follow”.
In a recent interview, Australia’s biggest media buyer also picked up on a similar thread. Outgoing OMG group CEO, Peter Horgan, lamented the demise of transparency and his group’s long-held position of being ‘more transparent’ in Australia than other media buying groups.
His essential argument was that ‘advertisers have lost interest’ in transparency and that it was no longer a driver of business when marketers selected agencies.
An agency relationship is one where the agency trades on behalf of the client. Legally, this means the agency is not purchasing media directly for itself but is instead buying it in the name of, or on behalf of, the client. The agency’s obligations are generally limited to negotiating, planning, and booking media while ensuring the best rates and placements for the client. Here, the client retains ultimate liability for payment to the media vendor, and the agency acts primarily as an intermediary or facilitator without ownership of the media inventory.
Every client contract I have seen askes for an obligation for the agency to have sole liability. Any contract that asks for the agency to take liability is in essence making the agency a principal in the transactions because to take liability requires the Agency to buy the media and then on sell it to the client.
If a client pursed a true agency relationship, they may be surprised by how much bigger their buying fee would be.
The evidence is that it delivers significant returns for media agencies and more modest returns for clients.
A recent article by Nick Manning points this out.
https://www.mxpiq.com/principal-based-media-is-the-juice-worth-the-squeeze/
If it works so well for clients why the secrecy?
How much profit do the agency groups make?
Why are holding groups most engaged in this type of trading the most profitable?
Why are other groups signalling their intention to accelerate this activity?
I don’t believe for one moment it’s clients demanding more of the practice.
And finally ‘inconvenient truth’ which holding group do you represent?
Hiding behind a cloak of anonymity says it all.
If such a benefit to your client base you should proudly put a name to your comment…….
If the consultant guidelines provide transparency on
How you get on their list for pitches ? What is the criteria ?
Are there any conflicts with other services provided to the agencies recommended ?
Etc etc
Then it will be extremely well received
Compliance only working one way at the moment
Absolutely—anonymity becomes a shield, especially in an industry where “witch hunts” against principal trading are often about positioning rather than principle. Critics who build their careers on targeting these practices often do so less for clients’ benefit and more to stake a moral high ground that conveniently attracts new business. In an environment where any deviation from transparency is demonized, anonymity is a way to focus on the merits of an argument rather than become a target of professional one-upmanship.
What’s truly wrong is the selective outrage: if transparency advocates were genuinely concerned about client interests, they’d push for balanced discussions rather than vilifying a model that, when managed well, provides strong outcomes. Anonymity isn’t the issue; it’s the relentless focus on image over results that keeps the conversation unproductive.
The debate around principal media trading is often more self-serving than it appears. Critics calling for transparency wave this flag less from genuine concern and more to win business by positioning themselves as “ethical” alternatives. But let’s be clear: principal trading, as it operates now, is a streamlined and evolved model, different from the unregulated practices some ex-media agency CEOs let flourish on their watch. They built a system that was messy and opaque; today’s version is optimized, offering clients competitive advantages and better rates by cutting out inefficiencies.
Opponents talk transparency, but what they’re really chasing is client trust under a flag of convenience. Principal trading is here because it drives returns for clients willing to see beyond the rhetoric. Instead of fixating on a mythical ideal of transparency, the focus should be on real value—where both agency and client reap rewards in a fair and effective way. The era of hand-wringing over transparency is fading, and with good reason: today’s principal trading delivers strategic, measurable impact.
Anonymous, that is an excellent idea. In fact, upon returning from the USA, I suggested the same to the AFA (two iterations ago of the Advertising Council Australia), Lesley Brydon, and Collin Segelov at the AANA. Back then, they had no interest in replicating the “Rules of the road”, which had been well established by their counterparts there, the ANA and the 4A’s.
If you search for 4As Rules of the Road, you will find a PDF online that supports the approach.
Suppose Tony Hale, Sophie Maddern, or Josh Faulks are interested in developing consultant guidelines, as I suggested to their predecessors 17 years ago. In that case, we are happy to come to the party.
Thanks for the suggestion, which proves that nothing is new or original.
Keen to understand the transparency principles of consultants, guidelines here would be really helpful for clients and agencies