The hidden rules of the new media monopoly game
By David Lucy
Managing Director, December19
David Lucy, Managing Director at December19, recently contributed to an article regarding Meta’s principal media practices.
Principal, or proprietary media — where inventory is bought in bulk and resold at a margin — is how TV worked for decades. But it’s a very different offer when it comes from Meta.
David sees the model as less of a radical shift and more of an evolution;
“There’s always been various ways to unlock more value through slightly opaque practices,” he says. “Ten years ago, you might pre-commit 40% of your TV budget with Channel 4 to unlock value. Proprietary media is just the latest iteration of that.”
“It’s also a harder model to justify when the media isn’t finite. Unlike linear TV, Meta’s inventory doesn’t run out. So the only reason to buy in bulk is to lock out others and make the agency beholden to what’s already been committed. That’s not media planning — that’s stock shifting.”
A tidy model with messy outcomes
Meta’s version of principal buying turns agencies into something closer to commercial partners than client advisors. It’s a neat way for Meta to lock in spend, but it muddies the waters for advertisers expecting independent advice. And when the agency becomes both the buyer and the seller, the question isn’t just what works best — it’s what needs moving.
“People need to consider the consequences,” Lucy warns. “If your agency has pre-bought a load of inventory that they need to sell, then you have to consider what impact that might have on how agnostically they approach your plan.”
“The amount that the agency is going to make will be undisclosed, and the full supply chain is opaque,” he says. For large advertisers buying broad and deep across channels, that may still work. For everyone else, it’s harder to justify.
“You might save 5% on a headline fee, but would that 5% offset not being in the ideal environment?” Lucy asks. “Or could you have slightly more effective advertising losing out on the 5% headline fee, but in places that are 10% more likely to reach your audience?”
Advice from the indies
So what can mid-sized advertisers actually do? Scrutinise the plan.
“You’ll find network agencies trying to plan agnostically, and some independents exploring alternative trading models. But the agencies that prioritise trust, openness and transparency — that’s where I think we’ll see momentum shift. For some advertisers, the added value will be worth it. For others, the relationship itself might start to matter more.”
Lucy also points to the industry’s endorsement of principal media models in certain contexts. “I think the IPA's response to ISBA's media services framework was that it can be beneficial for all parties. The media owners get value committed up front, the agencies make some additional money and it gets some more value for advertisers. But that’s not right for all advertisers. And I think that's what we need to get people more aware of and thinking about the consequences of.”
The gap between what’s bought and what’s best is widening
This shift from agency-as-agent to agency-as-dealer marks a bigger philosophical break than the headlines suggest. Because it’s not just about how media is bought; it’s about what’s prioritised, what’s sacrificed and whose outcome the model is optimised for.
“It’s the latest evolution of other things,” reiterates Lucy. “If this is the currency people are looking to trade more value in, then it’s likely more people will adopt and investigate its benefits. I just think people need to be prepared to question the costs cheaper media comes with.”
To read the article in full, click here: https://www.thedca.co/post/the-hidden-rules-of-the-new-media-monopoly-game