Most brands operate on the assumption that their media agencies recommend channels with complete neutrality. In practice, this assumption is rarely put to the test. Channel selection is shaped by a combination of commercial, operational, and structural factors that are not always exclusively aligned with the brand’s own objectives.
Organisations such as ISBA have been drawing attention to this issue. The launch of the Media Services Framework 2025, published by ISBA in March 2025, reinforces the need for greater transparency, governance, and auditability in the relationship between advertisers and agencies, particularly with regard to the use of proprietary inventory and the distribution of value.
The central point is straightforward, yet frequently overlooked: the gap between media planning genuinely driven by performance and planning influenced by internal agency incentives represents a cumulative strategic risk.
How commercial incentives shape channel decisions
Channel recommendations do not emerge in a vacuum. Agencies operate within an ecosystem that encompasses commercial agreements with platforms, volume targets, and, in many cases, access to pre-purchased inventory.
The ISBA Media Services Framework 2025 was developed precisely to establish clearer rules around these dynamics, recognising that media planning and buying involve substantial financial flows and multiple points of risk in the absence of adequate governance.
One of the most significant aspects of this context is the practice known as Inventory Media. As analysed by Donna Malone of ID Comms in her commentary on the 2025 framework, this model involves agencies purchasing media in advance and subsequently reselling it to clients. In this scenario, the agency ceases to function purely as an intermediary and effectively operates as a media owner in its own right.
This creates a structural tension: is the recommended channel genuinely the most effective option for the brand, or simply the most convenient outlet for inventory already acquired?
Conflicts of interest
The issue does not lie inherently in the existence of proprietary inventory, but in the lack of transparency around how it is used and how it influences strategic decision-making.
Historically, as noted in the ISBA framework analysis and by ID Comms specialists, this type of media could appear in plans with limited detail, sometimes grouped under generic labels, with little clarity as to where advertisements would actually be placed.
This degree of opacity undermines two critical areas: the brand’s ability to assess the suitability of the channel, and the integrity of investment allocation decisions.
The 2025 update to the framework places particular emphasis on the need for clear labelling, auditability, and explicit client approval, as well as the separation of proprietary inventory from pricing commitments.
When the plan serves the agency, not the brand
The distinction between a brand-centric plan and an agency-centric one rarely manifests explicitly. It surfaces incrementally, through a series of decisions that may each appear inconsequential in isolation.
A plan genuinely oriented around brand objectives tends to be built on questions such as: where does the target audience’s attention actually reside; which channels generate measurable business impact; and what combination best maximises relevance and efficiency.
A plan influenced by internal agency incentives, by contrast, may exhibit subtler signals: recurring concentration on the same media outlets regardless of context; limited channel diversity; repetition of standardised formats; and difficulty in justifying decisions with current behavioural data.
This misalignment rarely surfaces in campaign reports, which typically focus on operational metrics rather than the strategic quality of the underlying decisions.
Questions brands should be asking, but rarely do
The absence of structured scrutiny is one of the principal factors that allows opaque practices to persist. Fundamental questions include: is there proprietary inventory included in this plan, and how is it identified; which channels were considered and discarded, and on what basis; are there commercial commitments that influenced this recommendation; how was the strategy constructed from an informed understanding of audience behaviour; and what is the independent rationale underpinning the investment allocation?
The ISBA Media Services Framework 2025 itself underscores the importance of audit rights, informed approval, and contractual clarity, precisely to address these gaps.
How to assess whether your media mix is strategic or merely convenient
Distinguishing a well-constructed plan from one driven by inventory convenience is not always straightforward, but certain indicators provide useful guidance. A strategic media mix is typically characterised by clear, data-driven and behaviourally informed rationale; meaningful integration between channels with complementary roles; flexibility to adapt throughout the campaign; and diversification coherently aligned with business objectives.
A convenience-driven mix, by contrast, tends to be more rigid and repetitive, with limited adaptability and often little explicit connection between channel selection and anticipated outcomes.
Why complex categories face greater exposure
Brands operating in highly regulated sectors or with extended decision-making cycles, such as pharmaceuticals, financial services, or B2B technology, face considerably greater risk. In these contexts, channel selection has a direct bearing on the quality of engagement, regulatory compliance, the credibility of communications, and time to conversion. A misallocation of investment is not simply a matter of inefficiency – it can fundamentally undermine an entire positioning strategy.
Transparent media planning
Transparency in media planning extends well beyond detailed reporting. It encompasses a set of structural practices. According to the ISBA Media Services Framework 2025, these include clear identification of proprietary inventory; contractually defined audit rights; separation of pricing from commercial incentives; regular and granular reporting; and governance over the approval of critical decisions.
The role of independent partners
The case for independent media partners – those without proprietary inventory to defend – is gaining increasing traction. The principal structural advantage lies in the absence of a direct conflict of interest, allowing channel recommendations to be constructed solely on the basis of business objectives, audience behaviour, and performance evidence. This does not eliminate the inherent complexity of media planning, but it changes the point of departure: strategy becomes driven by genuine need rather than commercial obligation.
Channel selection is one of the most consequential decisions within any media strategy – and among the least rigorously scrutinised in practice. Without structured questioning, robust governance, and genuine transparency, the risk is not merely operational; it is strategic. And, as with many structural risks, its effects rarely materialise immediately, they accumulate over time, eroding efficiency, undermining performance, and ultimately constraining growth.
