The advertising industry experiences periodic upheavals where massive media budgets enter competitive review. The trade press has nicknamed these moments “mediapalooza.” Each cycle promised transformation. None quite delivered until now.
2026 marks the opening act for genuine change. Coca-Cola’s global media, data and technology business is under review. So are Microsoft, Adidas, IBM, Dyson, Estée Lauder, Heineken, Honda Europe, Jaguar Land Rover, and Kenvue. These accounts represent roughly £8 billion in concluded media moves this year, with a further £8.5 billion currently under review, according to COMvergence analysis.
The full-year figure is forecast to land between £23 and £24 billion, well below 2025’s £28.5 billion. Yet this apparent slowdown conceals something more significant: the vast majority of the world’s top 100 global advertisers have not undertaken media reviews in over seven years. When those dormant accounts inevitably move, probably in 2027, the scale of agency repositioning will dwarf anything we’ve seen before.
The alignment nobody expected
Previous mediapaloozas were defined by antagonism. In 2015, the debate centred on agency transparency. In 2018, it was whether agencies possessed adequate technology. In 2020, the industry questioned whether agencies should exist at all.
This cycle is different. For the first time, both sides want remarkably similar things.
Clients require contracts reflecting a fundamentally different industry, one where AI governance and principal media participation are essential baseline requirements, not afterthoughts. Agencies, meanwhile, desperately need commercial models that don’t erode profitability year-on-year. That shared interest doesn’t eliminate friction over specific terms, but it does remove the zero-sum adversarialism that characterised previous rounds.
Ruben Schreurs, CEO of media management firm Ebiquity, characterises the situation plainly: “All clients we are working with, even those with long standing relationships, are now in active consideration.” This doesn’t automatically translate to full competitive reviews. Senior leaders from both sides can effect real change through candid dialogue. Yet reviews remain the sharper instrument when the entire industry is reshaping simultaneously, and briefs emerging from that transformation cut across media, production and creative in ways established relationships simply weren’t built to accommodate.
AI costs and principal media: the contract rewrites
The clearest evidence of this shift appears in the contracts themselves. Newer agreements between advertisers and agencies include mandatory disclosure clauses specifying precisely how much revenue agencies earn through principal media transactions. These clauses define when an agency can act as principal, which channels qualify, and under what conditions.
AI provisions are equally transformative, though contractual language remains fluid and evolving in real time. The immediate pressure centres on cost allocation. Agencies have absorbed AI infrastructure expenses for two years, carrying these costs on balance sheets as acquisition tools. That subsidisation era is ending.
AI infrastructure outlays are migrating from agency balance sheets to client ones. Contract negotiations now reflect that structural reality. Some agencies offer continued infrastructure absorption, but exclusively if clients commit to minimum principal media allocations in return. Others charge token usage directly, applying premiums analogous to historical overhead markups on headcount.
Philippe Dominois, co-founder and CEO of Abintus Consulting, warns that agencies cannot simply claim they produce better work with AI. “You need to explain what, why,” Dominois says. “It will be quicker and cheaper, but actually is it effective? You need to find the right balance between the two.”
A competitive pitch forces agencies to answer these questions with rigour that mid-contract renegotiations rarely demand. That pressure is precisely why the accounts entering review in 2027 may finally resolve a structural problem the industry has deferred since 2015: how to compensate agencies for what they actually deliver rather than hours expended producing it.
The contract flexibility battle
Ryan Kangisser, chief strategy officer at MediaSense (currently managing Coca-Cola’s media review), notes that transformation requires more than simply engaging a different agency partner. “They want transformation,” Kangisser observes. “They don’t just want another media agency. What that looks like in practice is still being worked out. But the direction is clear enough: something interoperable, where a core agency relationship handles the bulk of the work but the client retains the right to bring in specialists from outside the group without friction or penalty.”
Historically, holding company networks have responded to such demands by offering choice—all of it within their own portfolio. Clients increasingly find that proposition unconvincing. Yet independent agencies and specialist firms aren’t yet large enough to absorb the volume. Consequently, most sophisticated advertisers are designing hybrid arrangements covering the majority of their needs through a primary relationship whilst building flexibility around the periphery.
The real battle now centres on writing that flexibility into contracts. Most current agreements lack provisions for it. Patrick Ryan, founder of The 300 Consultancy, argues this gap reflects a deeper institutional pattern: “Clients are still treating pitching as the default answer to problems it rarely solves. If moving agencies was the fix, we wouldn’t keep seeing the same accounts come up for review so regularly.”
Short-term thinking, Ryan continues, amplifies this dysfunction. When high turnover on both sides means relationships are constantly being rebuilt rather than strengthened, investment in partnership depth becomes impossible. “If we want a more progressive industry,” he argues, “we should all be striving for better partnerships—ones built to deliver results and withstand change together.”
Outcome-based fees: finally within reach
No pursuit in advertising is more famously elusive than outcome-based remuneration. For years, the industry has chased it. A deal materialises here, a press release there, followed by the inevitable mirage. The fundamental obstacle remains genuine: far too many variables outside media influence a brand’s commercial performance.
Yet something has shifted. Holding companies are bullish—admittedly from self-interested positions given their current vulnerabilities. Chief marketing officers are eager, despite procurement departments erecting resistance. And AI is forcing both parties to reckon honestly with what a viable new commercial architecture actually requires.
This confluence of pressures has made outcome-based remuneration discourse more tangible than ever before. Jaguar Land Rover exemplifies the emerging template: the luxury automotive group has negotiated a substantial portion of its WPP fees to depend on measurable sales performance.
These arrangements remain complex to execute. Attribution, competitive interference, and macroeconomic volatility all complicate the picture. But they’re no longer theoretical. They’re operating, proving that compensation tied to client outcomes is architecturally feasible when both parties commit to transparency and sophisticated measurement.
The 2015 mediapalooza promised agencies would be more transparent. The 2018 version pledged agencies would gain better technology. The 2020 round debated agencies’ continued relevance. This one may finally deliver what every cycle has promised and none has achieved: commercial arrangements that reward agencies for results delivered rather than efforts expended.
Whether that promise becomes reality depends on whether agencies and clients can build partnerships robust enough to withstand transformation together. For the first time, both sides appear genuinely interested in trying.
Key Takeaways
| 2027 will see the largest media account reviews since 2015, with 27+ of the world’s top 100 advertisers entering competitive pitch processes. | These dormant accounts represent unprecedented volume. When they move simultaneously, the reshaping of agency relationships will be more radical than 2026’s current activity suggests. |
| AI cost allocation is being written into new agency contracts with absolute clarity. | Agencies can no longer absorb infrastructure expenses as acquisition costs. Newer agreements specify exactly how AI expenses migrate to clients, and what clients receive in return. |
| Principal media transparency is becoming contractually mandatory. | Advertisers now demand precise disclosure of agency revenue earned through principal media transactions. These clauses define channels, conditions, and revenue thresholds with unprecedented specificity. |
| Outcome-based remuneration is no longer aspirational—it’s operational. | Jaguar Land Rover, Coca-Cola, and others are implementing compensation tied directly to business results. These arrangements prove the model is architecturally feasible when transparency and measurement systems are robust. |
| Contract flexibility is the hidden battleground of 2026–2027 negotiations. | Clients increasingly reject holding-company-only solutions. They want primary relationships paired with specialist access without penalty. Most current contracts lack the flexibility provisions these arrangements require. |
| Both agencies and clients are finally aligned on fundamental problems, changing the tone of negotiation entirely. | Previous mediapaloozas featured adversarial positioning. This cycle centres on mutual agreement that the existing model no longer works for either party, creating space for genuine structural innovation. |
FAQ
What exactly is principal media, and why is it now controversial?
Principal media occurs when an agency acts as a media buyer and reseller rather than simply negotiating on behalf of clients. Agencies purchase media inventory at wholesale rates and sell it to clients at higher prices, pocketing the margin. This practice is profitable for agencies but can create incentive misalignment (agencies might favour principal opportunities over client-optimal placements). Current contracts now mandate detailed disclosure of which channels qualify for principal activity and how much revenue it generates.
Why are AI costs such a critical negotiation point right now?
Agencies invested heavily in AI infrastructure over 2024–2025 as a competitive acquisition tool, absorbing costs themselves. That strategy created an unsustainable subsidy model. Newer contracts clarify that clients will bear a fair share of AI infrastructure costs, and what measurable benefits clients should expect in return. This prevents agencies from building uneconomical dependencies on AI spending.
Has outcome-based compensation actually worked for any agencies?
Yes. Jaguar Land Rover’s arrangement with WPP demonstrates that outcome-based fees work when both parties establish transparent attribution methodologies and accept that external factors (market conditions, competitive pressure, macroeconomic volatility) affect client performance. These arrangements require sophisticated measurement and trust, but they’re operational.
Why do clients want contract flexibility if they’re hiring an agency anyway?
Most sophisticated clients no longer believe a single agency partner can excel across all specialisms. They want a core relationship for primary work, paired with access to best-in-class specialists for particular functions—data, creative, performance media, etc.—without contractual penalties for working outside the main agency group. This is how enterprise clients actually work in other sectors.
Will this actually change anything, or is 2027 just another mediapalooza that fails to deliver?
The critical difference is that agencies and clients want similar outcomes this time. Previous mediapaloozas featured one side trying to extract concessions from an unwilling counterparty. This cycle sees both parties recognising the existing model is unsustainable. That alignment, combined with AI forcing concrete contractual rewrites around cost and transparency, makes genuine structural change more probable than in any previous cycle.
What should publishers and media companies be preparing for?
Expect more sophisticated, outcome-focused media briefs from agencies as these new contract terms take effect. Agencies will pressure publishers for transparent, attribution-friendly measurement. You should also anticipate increased principal media activity, as agencies negotiate fixed allocations with clients. Standardised, auditable reporting will become table stakes rather than optional.
What this means for publishers
For media companies and publishers, this recalibration presents both opportunity and obligation. As agencies restructure around outcome-based models, they’ll demand more granular, auditable measurement from publisher partners. The ambiguity that once characterised media reporting—impressions, engagement metrics, attribution claims—is becoming professionally untenable.
Publishers who build transparent, standardised, third-party-auditable reporting systems will win disproportionate allocation when the 2027 account reviews unfold. Those clinging to proprietary or opaque measurement methodologies will find themselves deprioritised in briefs increasingly rooted in quantified performance.
The industry is also consolidating around outcome-focused remuneration. Publishers should expect—and should welcome—conversations with agency partners about outcome-based media buys. These arrangements reward media quality over volume and align publisher success metrics with client business results. Publishrs.com’s publishing platform technology is purpose-built for this shift, providing publishers and media companies with the measurement transparency and contractual flexibility modern briefs demand.
The next two years will separate publishers who understand this transition from those who resist it. Publishrs.com’s content management and analytics suite gives media companies the visibility into content performance and audience behaviour that outcome-based partnerships now require.
As briefs grow more sophisticated, so will client expectations around editorial quality, audience demographics, and verifiable engagement. Start a conversation with the Publishrs team about how your publication can position itself for the outcome-focused media ecosystem emerging from the 2027 account reviews. The infrastructure to support these arrangements exists now. Publishers who adopt it early will be best positioned to capture the elevated agency budgets flowing toward performance-proven partners.
Media ownership and operation is transforming. Publishrs.com is built for publishers operating at the forefront of that transformation—offering the platform infrastructure, measurement capability, and contractual flexibility that success in an outcome-driven media ecosystem demands.
