Can You Account for Every Pound of Your Media Investment?

Advertisers are dealing with agency fees, commissions, rebates, performance incentives, technology charges, production costs, value commitments and, in some cases, proprietary or non-disclosed media arrangements.

Individually, each may be legitimate. The challenge is understanding how they work together — and whether the commercial arrangements agreed between advertiser and agency are actually delivering what was intended.

For an advertiser investing millions in media, small differences can quickly become significant sums.

So perhaps the more useful question isn’t simply “Are we getting value from our media agency?”

It is:

“Can we account for every pound of our media investment?”

The agency fee is often the most visible part of the commercial relationship, but it may not be the only source of agency remuneration.

Depending on the contract and relationship, there can be commissions, rebates, production income, technology or platform charges, performance-related payments, service fees and other commercial arrangements.

The important point isn’t that these arrangements exist. It’s whether they are clearly understood, contractually defined and appropriately accounted for.

A financial audit should establish what the agency is entitled to receive, what has actually been received and whether the two align.

Advertisers naturally focus on media performance — reach, frequency, impressions, CPMs, response and return.

But underneath those measures sits a fundamental financial question:

What did the media actually cost, and how does that compare with what the advertiser was charged?

This becomes particularly important where media is bought through proprietary, non-disclosed or alternative commercial arrangements.

These approaches aren’t automatically wrong. They can potentially deliver value to an advertiser.

But where the underlying cost isn’t fully visible, advertisers need other ways of establishing whether the price, quality and value are appropriate.

The absence of disclosure doesn’t remove the need for accountability. It changes how that accountability needs to be achieved.

A media contract can contain significant financial protections and commitments.

But a contract only provides value if it is being followed.

That means testing what was agreed against what actually happened.

For example:

• Were agreed fees applied correctly?
• Were commissions calculated as agreed?
• Were rebates and other benefits passed back appropriately?
• Were volume or value commitments achieved?
• Were agreed approval processes followed?
• Were additional charges permitted under the contract?
• Were proprietary or non-disclosed arrangements handled in accordance with the agreed rules?

These are not simply contractual questions. They can have a direct impact on the amount of money available for media.

Advertisers often negotiate hard to secure better commercial terms.

But the important question is what happens afterwards.

If an agency commits to a particular level of value, discount, rebate or other financial benefit, how is that commitment measured?

And who is independently checking it?

This is where a financial media audit can provide considerably more insight than simply reviewing invoices.

It can bring together the contractual terms, agency financial data and actual media activity to establish whether the commercial agreement is working as intended.

The agency and advertiser should have a shared objective: delivering the best possible outcome from the advertiser’s media investment.

But some commercial arrangements can create competing financial interests.

For example, where an agency or its wider group has a financial interest in a particular product, media owner, technology platform or buying arrangement, the advertiser should understand how that relationship is governed.

This isn’t about assuming something is wrong.

It’s about recognising that where commercial interests exist, appropriate controls and independent measurement become more important.

Proprietary or non-disclosed media has received considerable attention in recent years.

The debate can sometimes become overly simplistic: either it is good value or it isn’t; either advertisers should use it or they shouldn’t.

We think the more useful question is:

What evidence does the advertiser have that it represents good value?

If an advertiser chooses to participate in proprietary media, it should understand:

• What it is buying
• Who is providing it
• How it is priced
• What quality standards apply
• How it is presented and approved
• What financial interest the agency or agency group has
• How performance is measured
• How the arrangement is independently assessed

In other words, proprietary media doesn’t necessarily need to be excluded.

It needs to be governed.

A good financial audit shouldn’t simply identify whether an agency has technically complied with a contract.

It should help an advertiser answer a much more valuable question:

Are our commercial arrangements working in our best interests?

That means looking across the relationship rather than examining individual transactions in isolation.

For example, a financial audit might consider:

Agency remuneration
Are fees, commissions and other income being calculated correctly?

Contract compliance
Are the commercial terms agreed in the contract being applied in practice?

Media value
Are agreed discounts, rebates and other benefits being delivered?

Proprietary media
Are non-disclosed arrangements appropriately controlled, reported and assessed?

Additional income
Are there other sources of agency remuneration that need greater visibility?

Financial governance
Do the advertiser’s processes provide sufficient control over how media investment is committed?

The result should be more than a list of discrepancies.

It should provide a clearer picture of where the money is going, what the advertiser has agreed to, what has actually happened and where financial risks or opportunities remain.

If you can’t answer the following questions confidently, it may be worth taking a closer look:

• What does our agency earn from us in total?
• Are all sources of remuneration clearly understood?
• Are the financial terms in our contract being followed?
• Are we receiving the value and benefits we negotiated?
• Do we understand the financial implications of proprietary or non-disclosed media?
• Who independently checks that the numbers are right?
• When was the last time we tested the whole financial relationship rather than individual invoices?

For larger advertisers, the potential value of answering these questions can be substantial.

A 1% discrepancy on a £10m media investment is £100,000.

A 2% discrepancy is £200,000.

The percentages may look small.

The pounds are not.

Advertisers shouldn’t have to rely solely on the agency to demonstrate that the financial relationship is working as intended.

An independent financial media audit provides a structured review of the commercial relationship, testing the agreed terms against the financial reality.

At 23 Media Audits, we look at the relationship from the advertiser’s perspective - combining contract, financial and media expertise to identify discrepancies, missed value and areas where greater financial control may be required.

The objective isn’t to find fault for the sake of it.

It is to give advertisers confidence that the money they have committed to media is being managed in line with the agreement they made with their agency.

Your contract tells you what should happen.

An audit tells you what actually happened.

And for advertisers investing millions in media, that distinction can be worth a lot.

The first step is to test them.

Explore our Financial Media Audit or, if you’re not ready for a full audit, start with The Media Ad Check - a fixed-fee diagnostic designed to identify where the greatest areas of financial risk, opportunity or further investigation may sit.