About The Investigation. Every Wednesday, ADOTAT publishes one long piece built from primary sources rather than press releases: written on-record answers, contracts, filings, transcripts, and the questions the trades tend not to ask. The format is deliberately narrow.

One subject, named companies, named executives, and every claim put to the people it concerns before publication, with their answer printed as they gave it or their silence noted. Nothing here is sponsored, nobody reviews it in advance, and the reporting runs whether or not the subject is a friend of the publication.

I want to start there, because it took months of reporting to understand it, and once you do, everything else rearranges itself.

In January, at CES, in a dark hotel corridor with a random Beet.TV camera pointed at him, a man named Reid Steinberg explained the most contested practice in the media business without a flicker of discomfort. No one seemingly noticed this interview until last week.

Reid is EVP media director at ICON International. He described media the way a CFO would: an expense item on a client's budget sheet, next to agency fees and data fees. He described what his company does to that expense. ICON puts its own capital into media companies to solve their problems, quarter-end revenue gaps, marketing costs, event funding, and the accumulated result is what he called a principal position in media.

Point that position at a client's budget and, in his account, you unlock ten to fifteen percent of additional value on inventory the client was going to buy anyway. Media stops being a cost. It becomes, in his phrase, a profit maker.

He was not defensive. He was proud of it. Then he said the true thing that should have been the headline everywhere: every major holding company now does this.

He is not an outlier.

He is the honest version.

Now walk backwards through the record.

In 2010, while Omnicom owned ICON, the company's own website warned prospective clients that a media-buying company or an ad agency was not likely to do corporate barter well, and listed the reasons media agencies were bad at it.

The warning was published by the holding company's own subsidiary, on the holding company's own domain.

In 2015 the advertisers' own trade body wrote it down. The ANA published a paper on agencies and barter describing clients as buying into a black box involving undisclosed margins. It named ICON as Omnicom's operation. It flagged the exact conflict that would define the next decade: that sibling media agencies might steer inventory or pricing toward the affiliated unit. Black box. Undisclosed margins. Steering risk. A full year before K2.

Through 2016 the World Federation of Advertisers ran a Sourcing Forum for marketing procurement specialists. Eight hundred people in the network. Seven meetings a year in Paris, London, Shanghai, Singapore and New York. Client-only by design, no agencies, no media, no suppliers, Chatham House rules. The buyers were not uninformed. They had a dedicated international apparatus for precisely this problem.

Then K2, 2016. Then, in 2021, Omnicom sold ICON to its own management and told the market it would not materially affect operating income.

Then Omnet.

Then Apex.

Then Midas, Orion, and every variant since.

Twelve years of accurate, public, on-the-record description by the participants and by the people paying them. And the practice grew every single year.

So the question was never what is being concealed. Almost nothing is.

One number is concealed. The same number, for forty years, in every market, by every party.

Tom Denford audits media supply chains for advertisers. On ID Comms' own weekly broadcast he walked through what his firm can reach on principal media. Nearly everything, he said. Then he named the exception, and the exception is the whole business: the agencies will not disclose the price paid.

Bill Duggan spent twenty-six years at the ANA. On a transparency panel this year he offered the shortest true sentence anyone has produced about this model. "My favorite all-time line at ANA," he said, "is the line where there's mystery, there's margin." He credits it to Michael Thyen, who ran marketing procurement at Eli Lilly and sat in that WFA forum.

There is one mystery left in this business.

At a single holding company, it is worth about a billion dollars a year.

And the same month I was writing this, the two largest advertisers on earth went to market at once. Between them, across more than three billion dollars, the industry produced one competitive bid. That comes later. Hold it.

Richy Glassberg says that he co-founded the IAB. Rich LeFurgy was its founding chairman. They came on The ADOTAT Show together before Richard Foster's amended complaint put Sony's numbers into a New York courtroom, and I asked whether the non-disclosed trading model had ever really gone away.

Glassberg did not pause. "It didn't disappear, dude," he said. "That was the whole basis of Xaxis. They made, you know how much money GroupM made off a non-disclosure Xaxis?"

Hold onto that for a bit.

LeFurgy's verdict, right behind him, was five words. "It was a plague on the house."

Two men who wrote the rules of digital advertising, naming the model and the company, on the record, before Foster filed. Nobody leaked anything. The founders said it into a microphone.

They disagreed about where it started, and the disagreement is worth more than either position.

Glassberg's theory was economic: "That bifurcation of media buying from creative and the way it has destroyed fees, because now, you're seeing it's just, it's a race to the bottom." Ok, wow.

LeFurgy corrected him with something stranger. "It was because in every new business pitch we ever did, media went last. They couldn't get any respect. Nine times out of ten, they were cut out."

Glassberg conceded on the spot. "So the whole split wasn't about the economics; it was about respect. I love that, Rich."

The most profitable opacity in advertising began as a status injury. Media was the part of the pitch nobody wanted to sit through. It left the room and built a business nobody could see.

Jon Bond co-founded Kirshenbaum Bond & Partners and was there for early programmatic. Asked about the margins, he answered on the Adotat Show with the hedge already attached, which is why I trust the number. "That's what happened with programmatic. I mean, early days of programmatic, I was involved in it. I think our margins were seventy-two percent. Now, obviously, that didn't last."

Keep the hedge. He is the only person here quoting a number against his own history.

Jared Belsky runs Acadia. Independent, mid-market. Not a holding company, not a top-ten shop, not a firm with the leverage to move an industry or the data to measure one.

This year his agency took a rebate. Then he worked out which portion belonged to which clients, on a published rubric that accounted for timing of the buy, amount spent, and when the client came on board. Then he paid it back. Fifty-three clients received a share.

Then he built a website telling Fortune 500 brands to refuse principal media. Then he wrote a column in Adweek under his own byline and put a number on what the practice is worth across the industry. Forty billion dollars.

He does not have the data. He is outside the six organizations that do. He reasoned his way to a figure and published it with his name on it.

It is the only number that exists.

Six global holding companies have the real figure on their own systems. Two international trade bodies have surveyed their members about it for over a decade. Audit firms review this inventory every year. And the only quantification any of them has produced came from the smallest agency in this story, because he was the only one willing to say a number out loud.

He came on The ADOTAT Show. That episode was yesterday. This is what his number is sitting inside.

Free preview ends here. Join the ADOTAT list to keep reading.