Why Outcome-Based Pricing Might Be Bad For Your Brand

The ID Comms Breakdown

Outcome-based agency pricing sounds like the holy grail for progressive CMOs and procurement leaders. You link fees to business results, share risk with your media agency, and prove ROI in one neat story. In practice, for most brands, outcome-based pricing in media creates more risk than value and quietly drags investment down the funnel.

In this episode of #MediaSnack Live, David and I unpack two big themes coming out of the ANA Advertising Financial Management conference:

• The real-world pros and cons of outcome-based pricing for media agencies
• Why ID Comms still prefers value-based remuneration for most advertisers
• How outcome-linked deals can compromise transparency and governance
• Why Aquila, the new advertiser-owned cross-media measurement layer, really matters

For CMOs, Procurement Directors, and Global Heads of Media, the core message is simple: treat outcome-based models with healthy skepticism, double down on value-based fees, and lean in hard to advertiser-owned measurement like Aquila to protect your competitive advantage in media.

Outcome-based pricing: what’s going on and where it really works

Outcome-based pricing means tying a significant part of agency remuneration directly to business results: revenue, sales, leads, or sometimes softer KPIs like brand equity. On stage it sounds powerful. In RFP decks it looks visionary. In real contracts it is usually messy, narrow, and full of unintended consequences.

In theory, outcome-based models should align client and agency incentives, position media as a growth lever, and create a sharp ROI narrative for CFOs. In one example David shared, an advertiser allowed its media agency to take a defined share of incremental revenues. The agency gained access to all performance data and channels, obsessed about optimization, and the client saw revenue climb sharply.

That kind of pure, transparent revenue-sharing model is rare. It worked because the advertiser:

• Had a strong, measurable lower-funnel business
• Gave the agency broad access to data and channels
• Agreed a simple, auditable revenue-share formula in the contract

For most brands, especially with complex portfolios, longer purchase cycles, and brand-led growth, these conditions do not exist. Outcomes are harder to attribute, more stakeholders influence the result, and agency appetite for genuine downside risk drops fast once negotiations move from the conference stage into legal review.

The reality: outcome-based pricing has a narrow sweet spot. It can add value in very specific lower-funnel performance environments with high-quality data and clear attribution. Outside that, the operational and governance complexity tends to outweigh the upside.

What’s going on?

Across the industry, holding companies are talking loudly about outcome-based compensation. Panels at ANA events and trade press interviews showcase pilots where agencies are ''paid for performance'' or ''share risk with clients.'' At the same time, David and I are hearing a different conversation in private.

Agency leaders who publicly champion outcome-based pricing still ask, off stage, how to actually make these models work commercially without taking on unacceptable revenue risk. That tension creates pressure to bundle two separate topics into one conversation:

• Outcome-based remuneration
• Proprietary, non-disclosed 'inventory media' or principal trading

When those topics appear together in the same pitch, CMOs and procurement should treat it as a flashing red light.

Why outcome models can quietly erode transparency and brand building

The biggest hidden risk with outcome-based models is not that they fail, it is where they push media investment. When you pay agencies mainly on measurable outcomes, you incentivize them to push spend into channels and buying structures that are easiest to optimize and attribute, not necessarily those that build long-term brand value.

In lower-funnel performance media, outcome-based pricing can encourage heavier use of non-disclosed or semi-disclosed inventory, such as proprietary platforms or principal buys. Agencies may frame these as essential to hit outcome targets. In practice, they reduce transparency, weaken procurement’s ability to govern value, and make independent verification harder.

I highlight a second problem: attribution. As an industry, we spent a decade arguing about last-click attribution and multi-touch models, and we still have no perfect solution. If we struggle to credibly assign credit for a conversion, how can we fairly peg millions of dollars of agency remuneration to complex KPIs like brand equity or market share where media is only one of many drivers?

Most media agencies understand this very well. Historically they have resisted being paid directly on brand KPIs, because so many other factors sit outside their control: product, distribution, pricing, creative, macroeconomics, and more. The recent enthusiasm for outcome-based pricing coincides with a push toward principal trading and proprietary inventory where agencies can defend rich margins behind opaque pricing.

For publicly traded holding companies, that should make you pause. Their investors generally want predictable revenue, not contingent fees based on outcomes they only partially influence. If those companies are still excited about outcome-based models, it is often because they see opportunities to unlock higher margins in the background.

From an advertiser’s perspective, that risk shows up in three ways:

• Blurred lines between agency advice and inventory sales
• Reduced transparency into media costs and value
• Down-funnel bias that starves brand-building activity

For CMOs who have just fought hard to rebalance from short-term performance into a healthier 60/40 style split, that is a real concern. Outcome-based pricing sounds modern, but for many brands it is a fast route back into short-termism.

What are the implications?

For sophisticated advertisers, the implications of embracing outcome-based pricing at scale include:

• Governance risk: Less disclosed media weakens audit rights and governance structures, especially for global categories with complex internal controls.
• Strategic drift: Brand-building channels that do not lend themselves to simple attribution get under-funded, even if they drive profit over time.
• Relationship strain: When KPIs are poorly defined or external factors swamp performance, client and agency perceptions of ''fair reward'' diverge quickly.

At ID Comms, after more than 20 years deep in the media trenches, the view is pragmatic: outcome-based pricing is not inherently bad, but it is the wrong primary incentive structure for most media agencies and most brands.

Aquila cross-media measurement: why CMOs should lean in

If outcome-based pricing raises red flags, Aquila is one of the most encouraging developments for serious advertisers in years. Built out of an ANA initiative and now set up as an independent, advertiser-backed entity, Aquila aims to provide a single cross-media measurement layer for the US market.

Aquila’s goal is to give advertisers deduplicated reach and frequency across major channels: linear TV, CTV and streaming, digital, and crucially the walled gardens such as Google, Meta, Amazon, and TikTok. By providing a neutral, privacy-safe measurement framework, Aquila helps marketers see the true overlap across platforms, identify waste, and optimize media plans based on a single view of the audience.

In June 2024, the ANA announced that Aquila had been established to govern and operationalize this cross-media measurement system in the US. It is built ''by marketers for marketers'' and is designed to support planning, optimization, post-campaign reporting, and outcome analysis. Platforms and major advertisers participate in the governance, but the initiative is explicitly advertiser-led and independent.

One detail David emphasizes is the contribution model. Advertisers contribute a small percentage of media spend, around 0.0075 percent, capped at a maximum of about $750,000 per year even for very large spenders. That makes participation accessible for mid-sized brands while still funding a robust, sustainable measurement infrastructure.

In our opinion, one of the strongest signals is structural: Aquila is not tucked inside a trade body committee that can be quietly defunded when enthusiasm wanes. It is a standalone, for-profit business led by experienced industry operator Bill Tucker, with a clear mandate to deliver for advertisers over the long term.

That matters because cross-media measurement is a generational project, not a campaign experiment. You are planting a tree that your successors will sit under. When the measurement layer is advertiser-owned, not seller-funded, it is easier to trust the numbers during difficult budget conversations.

What should marketers do next on Aquila?

Emotionally, lean in. If you are a CMO, Procurement Director, or Global Head of Media, there are very few reasons not to get curious about Aquila. The promise is simple: a more accurate view of who you are reaching, how often, and where you are wasting money.

Practically, pressure-test fit. Ask two sets of questions:

• How would Aquila integrate with our existing MMM, MTA, and brand tracking frameworks?
• What needs to change in our internal data, agency contracts, and tech stack to operationalize a cross-media truth set?

For many ID Comms clients, the most powerful early use cases are straightforward: validating reach and frequency across TV and digital, reducing accidental over-frequency on heavy viewers, and aligning brand and performance teams around a common set of reach metrics.

How CMOs and procurement should be thinking about media remuneration

For most sophisticated advertisers, value-based remuneration remains the most robust way to pay media agencies. Instead of pegging large portions of fees directly to sales, you attach a portion of upside to a balanced scorecard of value KPIs that the agency can meaningfully influence and you can reliably measure.

Value KPIs can include things like quality of strategic thinking, effectiveness of media governance, innovation, talent retention on the account, and quantified savings or value improvements in trading and quality. Some elements may be financial, others operational, but together they reinforce the behaviors you want from a long-term partner.

The first step is internal: define what ''value'' really means for your organization. Work across marketing, finance, and procurement to agree a small set of value KPIs for media. Then make sure you have data and governance in place to track those objectively. This is where advertiser-owned measurement initiatives like Aquila become powerful enablers rather than isolated projects.

For outcome-based remuneration, ID Comms advice is intentionally cautious:

• Use outcome-linked fees sparingly and surgically, where you have clean data, short cycles, and clear line-of-sight to sales.
• Keep conversations about proprietary or principal media inventory completely separate from remuneration design.
• Maintain full transparency standards even when experimenting with outcome elements.

Above all, resist pressure to rush into fashionable models just because they sound progressive on stage. As Tom Denford notes, media holding companies should not be taking on large, unnecessary revenue risk unless they see margin elsewhere. If the model looks too generous to you, check where that margin is likely to come from and whether it is at the expense of your transparency or brand-building firepower.

CMOs, Procurement Directors, and Global Heads of Media do not need dramatic changes in remuneration to win. They need pragmatic, transparent structures that reward agencies for creating sustainable value and that are underpinned by independent measurement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is outcome-based pricing in media agency contracts?
It is a remuneration model where some agency fees depend on achieving specific business outcomes, such as sales or leads, rather than being based purely on hours, retainers, or commissions.

When can outcome-based pricing work well for advertisers?
It works best in lower-funnel, highly measurable environments with strong data, short purchase cycles, and clear attribution between media activity and conversions.

Why are ID Comms cautious about outcome-based pricing?
ID Comms sees that outcome-based models often reduce transparency, push spend into non-disclosed inventory, and bias investment away from long-term brand building.

How is value-based remuneration different from outcome-based pricing?
Value-based remuneration links part of agency upside to a balanced set of value KPIs, not just sales outcomes, rewarding partnership quality, governance, and strategic contribution.

What is Aquila in the context of media measurement?
Aquila is an advertiser-led cross-media measurement system, developed from an ANA initiative, designed to provide deduplicated reach and frequency across major channels and platforms.

Why should CMOs care about Aquila?
Aquila helps CMOs and their teams see the true combined reach of campaigns, cut waste from excessive frequency, and base planning decisions on a single, neutral view of the audience.

How is Aquila funded by advertisers?
Advertisers contribute a small percentage of media spend, around 0.0075 percent, with contributions capped at a reasonable level even for very large global spenders.

Does outcome-based pricing always mean using undisclosed inventory?
No, but agencies sometimes bundle outcome-based proposals with proprietary or principal buying solutions, which is why Tom Denford and David Indo warn advertisers to separate those discussions.

What first step should procurement leaders take on remuneration?
Start by defining what ''value'' means for your organisation, agree a short list of value KPIs with marketing and finance, and then rebuild remuneration structures around those measures.

How can ID Comms help advertisers navigate these topics?
ID Comms works as a media effectiveness coach, helping ambitious advertisers design remuneration models, evaluate measurement options like Aquila, and strengthen governance so they can protect and grow their competitive advantage in media.

Episode Transcript

Hello, I'm Tom Denford in New York. And I'm David Indo from London. Welcome to Media Snack Live. It's our weekly roundup of all the important news, and stories, and trends you need to know about the global media marketing industry. In every show we ask, what is going on? What are the implications for advertisers? And what should marketers be thinking about next? Thanks for joining us. Let's get into this week's show. Very good. Happy Friday. Happy Media Snack. We're back, Media Snack Live. How was your week? Yeah, really good. Busy, but really good. Good. Glad it's Friday. We've got a lot of stuff going on. It's always a busy- Yeah ... time of year, isn't it? It's actually Upfront week, if you're watching this back. Yeah. This is Upfront week in New York, so there's a lot of kind of noise in the industry. A lot of clients from New York. doing upfronts. Um, we might touch on that if we've got some time at the end. But, uh, we're still talking about two really big themes that came from the, uh, ANA's Advertising Financial Management conference. We- and we're gonna get- dig a bit deeper into some stuff that we talked about last week. Yeah. Uh, on last week's episode, we talked about some of three- three of these big priorities for marketing procurement. Perhaps we'll link to that, where you can find it, as last week's episode. Um, and we got quite a lot of comments back, uh, some privately from advertisers saying, "C- can we learn more about some of these things?" Yeah. Which we've then been having those meetings this week. Um, but we thought we'd actually share just a bit more, because we're gonna talk about these two specific things. There's one which is outcome-based pricing, which we touched a bit on last week, and we're gonna go a bit deeper on that. Um, and I've actually had some interesting comments back, uh, as well, through- through our different social channels on that, so we're get- we're gonna get into that. And then we're gonna talk about Akila, which is this new cross-media measurement, uh, solution, uh, which has been around for a little bit, but they've really kind of debuted it' and it's making amazing progress. They touched on? it at the ANA conference, and we're gonna just, uh, tell you what you need to know about that. Yeah. If you're, if you're an advertiser spending money on media, this is gonna be something probably quite helpful. Yeah. Um, as usual, we ask, what's going on? What are the implications? What should marketers be thinking about? Okay, so let's just get into that. Um, right. So first off, outcome-based pricing. Sounds great- Mm ... David. What's going on? Well, it, it does, in theory. So there's a big industry push around, uh, agencies being remunerated based on a set of business outcomes that are imposed on them- Yep ... by their clients. Now, on the surface, it makes perfect sense, right? It s- it illustrates that media is a lever for growth, because that's driving growth. It- it, uh, obviously allows the agencies to be seen as growth partners- Mm-hmm ... and it aligns both, uh, you know, clients and agencies in the same kind of direction. So it should kind of tick all those boxes. Yeah. Um, the other, the other benefit of this in- in- in its simplicity and its truism, is that it shares the risk, both agency and client, but it also provides a beautiful ROI narrative with which clients can begin to s- illustrate and, and, and socialize the power or the influence that their agency has- Yeah ... uh, to their internal kind of CEO and, and, uh, and, and finance teams, right? Yeah. So o- in theory, it's, it makes perfect sense. The reality of it is that it's really difficult to manage and to coordinate. That is the- Yeah ... that is the truth of the matter. I have seen it succeed really, really well once, and once only. Once. This was- Yeah. This was- Yeah ... this was an advertiser that engaged with their agency partner and allowed them to take a proportion of the revenues that this advertiser was generating, okay? Now, this allowed the agency to have access to all of their open channels. It wasn't just certain kind of key vertical channels. Yeah. But the upside was that there was a proportion written into the contract of the revenues that the agency would kind of take, and it worked spectacularly well. So business flew up off the charts. The agencies were obsessed with optimizing this client's campaigns because they, all they could see was upside. Now, that was one simple but unique example of where it can work. The challenges are, the nuances are, of this type of remuneration structure mean that it is deeply complicated and, and very often compromises both the integrity of the solution that the agency provide, but also the re- the reputation that they have within the client organization. Yeah. So it doesn't always work. Yeah. So- So Tom, what, I mean, what, what do you think are the implications of- of- of this, this structure? Uh, so, uh, uh, to your point, it, it's definitely gonna work. It ha- well, it has propensity to work in lower funnel performance environments, as you say- Yeah ... where, where you can link media to these, you know, and attribute it s- to sales or something like that. Yeah. Um, but even then, in practice, and this is what really is gonna matter to the marketer, which, you're gonna come on and t- and tell them what the advice is, but in practice, it has come some, with some challenges- Yeah ... which emerge pretty quickly, even in that. So the risk that we would flag to procurement, or we've been flagging to procurement, is an outcome-based model can encourage heavier use of non, less disclosed media, proprietary- Yeah ... inventory media. Okay? So with our, I say our, my cynical hat, I shouldn't need this cynical hat that I put on sometimes, um, my cynical hat says agencies are standing on stage, and we've literally been seeing them standing on stage at conferences, talking about the benefits of outcome-based pricing-And then we get questions privately from agency leaders going, "How does agen- outcome-based pricing work?" Mm. "How could, how. could this work?" We're like- Yeah, ... "Well, you're selling it, you're selling it-" Yeah ... "but you, you' haven't really got an idea of how it works." You're selling it because it's a route for you to be, maybe be able to suggest that pro- proprietary media, inventory media is a way of doing this, okay? Yeah. Uh, we're seeing it bundled together in the same conversations by agencies. Yeah. Okay? One of the benefits of inventory media is that we can get you to outcome-based pricing. You just have to reduce the amount of transparency. We're not gonna disclose as much- Yeah. ... we're gonna give you an outcome. Um, so that's, that's one of the risks that you've gotta be very, very aware of. Those are two separate conversations. They should not be the same conversation, okay? If you hear outcome-based pricing and principal media in the same conversation, anywhere other than on MediaSnack, be wary. Uh, it will... That lack of transparency for procurement limits your ability to govern media investment effectively. Yeah. Um, and when you start getting into, you know, the problems of sales attribution, you know, attributing what media im- had an impact on what business KPI, it gets very complicated. As an industry, w- we spent 10 m- years or more t- arguing over, you know, last-click attribution and different attribution models. I wouldn't say that's cracked at all. Yeah. Um, we're a long way from it. It gets really difficult then, though, when the KPIs, your client KPIs, are things like brand growth, market share- Client ... customer value, you know, product consideration. Uh, th- these are, these are things which, yes of course, a media agency might have a contributing factor to. A great media plan or a great media idea can really boost, you know, brand equity. Awesome. Okay. Um, but, no, no media agency in their right mind is gonna wanna be paid on the basis of brand equity scores, you know? Because there's so many other factors. And we've, we' say this, we've tried this, right, over the years. So this is not a new thing. We've literally tried to peg agency performance to an advertiser's critical marketing KPIs, and they don't wanna do it. Yeah. Now they wanna do it- Yeah ... because it actually maybe reduces transparency. Yeah. Um, the... On the surface, what I find is weird, though, about this, is that, you know, a lot of the companies that are really promoting outcome-based pricing are publicly traded companies who are under huge scrutiny from analysts and investors. And the idea of taking on risk, unnecessary risk to your revenue, on the surface would look like a ridiculous business model, 'cause any investor in those companies will say, "No, just get- paid." Yeah. "Get paid today." Now, get paid next year for something that you maybe have 10% influence on, that doesn't seem like something I would invest in myself. Get paid today for the value that you create, okay? Just be happy with that. Yeah. And then try and maximize the margins on that kind of turnover. You want the money today. Um, but obviously investors are hearing things in an outcome-based pricing focus on principal media that says, "Okay, there's probably margin here. There's probably good margin here." And that should be a w- a little bit of a warning sign. It's legitimate. There's nothing dodgy about that. But if you're an advertiser, you're like, "There's, there's margin in these margins, you know, th- here, that we have to just be a little bit wary about." So the, as you say, the big sign that says outcome-based pricing, um, is, has to be, you know, very carefully understood. Mm. It works very lower down. Yeah. And that, the danger I think is if we find, if we get lots of brands trying to embrace outcome-based pricing... Let me just stop for a second. I said to David, "Don't let me ramble on. We're gonna try and do these shows a bit faster." But here I am talking much. All right? Uh, I'm not even gonna let you interrupt me. No. 'Cause this is really important. Uh, one of my biggest concerns is that if outcome-based pricing gets adopted, it's gonna push everything down the funnel. Okay? Yeah. Yeah. We, I feel like we've just got out of the swamp of, like, 10 years of performance marketing. We've just got CMOs standing up saying, "It's 60/40. We've gotta put more into our brands." You know, in an agentic world, it's all gonna be brand-led. It's gotta be, you know, we've... Brands are gonna be more valuable than ever. And now we've got agencies saying, "Push it all down to the lower funnel. Just pay us on, you know, clicks and ticks and boxes and, and stuff." That's the- Yeah. Yeah. ... the real danger. It doesn't seem like a legit business model, genuinely. Mm. It doesn't, in our view, having studied media for 20-plus years, feel like the right way to incentivize a media agency. Yeah. Yeah. I w- I wouldn't do it, I don't think, myself. But, um, okay. These are some of the implications. I think that, it, it has, uh, generally negative, you know, connotations, up until a point where we have an agency stop asking us for the answer and s- telling us what that, actually means to advertisers. So- Yeah. ... if you're a CMO, David, what, what should you be thinking about outcome-based pricing? If I haven't put you off already. Yeah. Um, unless you're a particular type of, uh, business that, that is very, very lower funnel-based, then I would be extremely cautious about it. I still think that value-based remuneration structures where a proportion of the agency's upside is linked to value KPIs, not necessarily- Yeah ... performance KPIs, but value KPIs, is the smartest way to go. Yeah. If you are open to exploring how you can build a deeper, stronger partnership with your agency partners and reward them for, uh, increased delivery of value, then that should be the way to do it. And in o- the first step of doing that is understand what value means for you as an organization. What are the key value KPIs that you can impose on your agency and track those? Some of that might be a degree of business uplift, but other more, strategic measurement points could be actually included. So-Lean more in value-based remuneration, and I would be extremely cautious about going, doubling down entirely on, uh, on outcome-based structures. Yeah. I don't think... I think they're more dangerous, uh, for most businesses than, than the upside, uh, allows. Yeah. Okay. I think we' should- let's keep score on Media Snack in future episodes, okay? Um, we totally, as, as you all know, welcome anyone to educate us with a better point of view. Okay? We spend a lot of time thinking about this kind of stuff for your benefit, but if we've missed something or there's a better point of view- Yeah ... if you're an agency that. really thinks that, they've got a kind of way of, that. this can work or some... Tell us, because we' actually have advertisers asking us the question. Yeah. Be good for you if you can help us elevate this conversation. But at the moment, we are cautious, let's say- Yes ... on this. Um, so feel free, educate us. If you're an agency, you've got an idea on this, re- please reach out, um, and we'll update you- you know, Media Snack, when we feel like we- we've swinging the balance the other way. Great. Good. Um, I forgot to mention as well, I've just done recently an interview, uh, a Media Snack winners special with Bill Tucker, who's the CEO of Akila, which if that's not out already, you'll see it very shortly. Mm-hmm. Um, uh, comment. Sorry. Let me just quickly show this because we- Nick, thank you. Uh, Nick's a great media director. In- fact, he's, Nick has been a guest on Media Snack Winners. Yeah. Uh, he is a Media Snack winner. Uh, is it US only or available in U- US as well? Akila is US, but it is part of the collaboration that's happening with the trade associations ISBA in the UK and the World Federation of Advertisers. So they're trying to get, whilst Akila is US-focused, we're trying to do is get multi-market cross-media measurement and some standards into that. So good question. Um, Bill talks a bit more about this, the work they're doing with this kind of origin, uh, project. Uh, thank you, Nick. Good to see you. Mm-hmm. Um, right. Uh, check out the interview with Bill because he goes m- much more into it, and he tells you, as an advertiser, how to get involved, what's required, you know, what the onboarding's like, what, when you'll see the benefits, all of those kind of things that- Yeah ... that you probably actually want to know. Um, okay, as we wrap up, anything else kind of catching your- Yeah, just one- ... eagle eyes as we- One thing. Yeah. One thing. And I want to, I wanna pass on my, for what it's worth, my, my, um, heartfelt congratulations to Dentsu. Dentsu have had a- Hmm ... tough time of things recently. Um- Yeah, Red Ocean. And- They, they've been our Red Ocean agency, haven't they, for- They have. They have. Yeah. And we've, and we've been, we've been fairly brutal, I think, in, in some of our fair assessment, but nev- Mm ... nevertheless, fairly brutal. And, um, they, they had a p- bit of really good news recently. They've retained the global Heineken, uh, media account- Yeah ... which was up for review. Um, Heineken- Which looked a bit, looked a bit iffy, didn't it? Yeah. Looked a bit iffy. But that, that may very well be the renaissance of, of Dentsu, and I, and I, and I hope so. So we'll keep a close- Yeah ... eye on how they get on with the other pitches that they're, that they're in at the moment. Some of those are being managed by us. Um- Yeah ... and, but I'm, I was delighted, really genuinely delighted to, to, to see that they, uh, they retained that and, and very, very well done. They must have, they must have put on a hell of a show to, to, to retain that because Heineken- Yeah ... was a, was a highly kind of admired brand, and I'm sure, uh, many other holding companies w- were working really hard to, to nick that off them. So well done- Yeah ... Dentsu. Uh, hopefully, this is the beginning of a upturn for you. Yeah. And they just, I mean, recently got a new CEO, Takeshi, Takeshi Sano, who is, uh, we know is turning up to pitches. Yes, indeed. So good. That's great. We always like to see, you know, leadership- Yeah ... take leader- leading in, in pitches. Um, we've talked a lot about, you know, Arthur Sadoun and the, the, the, the style of the, you know, hot- h- sit at the back, the lingering kind of... Not lingering. What's the word? Hovering kind of C- Yeah ... CEO. Um, it's a nice play, and it says a lot, and it means a lot. And I think, you know, this, he knows he's starting in the right place, I think there, which is, you know, get some, get some retentions. Agreed. Save some, save some own goals and, and maybe win a couple of new things. Yeah. Um, that's a good way to start your tenure. It's gonna be really interesting. We... I know you wanna do a proper deep dive into Dentsu. Yeah, I do. I think we're gonna do a proper, you know, let's do a kind of un- un- unpacking of Dentsu and the, the last year because it's been really tricky- Mm ... uh, for them. Huge turnover of people. Uh, rewritten their playbook. New Japanese media, or agency CEO for the first time. Yeah. Um-Really trying to differentiate themselves, aren't they? So that's, that's good. There's... But it's exactly as we said, this is red ocean playbook stuff. Reinvent, you know, or get eaten. I mean, that's, that's the thing. Yeah. It's survival. It's a race to survival. Excellent. Um- It's a- ... Upfront week this week. Uh- Mm. I think, uh, it's all the typical razzmatazz, but I think the, the, the thing that we're seeing and the feedback that we're getting from advertisers, our clients are, are in the room in lots of these things. They don't invite us and neither should they. Um, we've got, we've got no direct money to spend, uh, and we're busy. So, uh, but this idea that everyb- every, every publisher, every program maker trying to position themselves as a platform, as a data platform, uh, I think is going to get a little overwhelming for advertisers at a time when they are maybe not so keen on committing upfront. You know, we've talked about the upfronts, uh- Yeah ... a few weeks ago. W- w- where our expectation is that they may be down a little bit because people wanna keep their budgets flexible. They're being a bit more conservative back half of the year into next year. Who knows? Uh, but, uh, maybe, maybe if something genuinely interesting comes out of it other than the razzmatazz and the, the kind of pr- program previews then, then we'll see. I think all I'm seeing is lots of people on social media complaining about having, having to walk to different things . I don't think that's the big news. It doesn't really make the- No ... make the headlines. Um- Good ... good. Okay. Uh, that's it for Media Snack this week. Thanks so much for joining us. We're live every single Friday, 11:00 AM Eastern, 4:00 PM UK and around the world. And go to idcoms.com should you want advice on any of the things that we're talking about, uh, or you've got a point of view, please let us know. See you next time. See you next time. And now I'll end the... Thanks for watching Media Snack Live. If you found it helpful and want to learn more, head to idcoms.com to get more tips, tools, and resources to help you get good at media. We'll see you next week.

If you would like to confidentially discuss your media 'gameplan' and explore options to protect and grow your competitive advantage in media, get in touch with the ID Comms team today.