Nick Manning posted nine words on LinkedIn and the whole industry liked the post. Tapped the little thumb. Nodded. Then went right back to feeding the machine.
Here are the nine words. We enriched the impression. They enriched themselves.
Read it twice. That is the entire business.
Manning helped build the media-agency model and now spends his retirement explaining how the sausage gets ground, which is the most Orthodox thing a man can do, repent loudly and in public. His question was simple. The money you hand to the middle is supposed to improve the odds your ad reaches a human in a way that works. The data says it does not. So what are you paying for?
In the old days agencies actually worked with media owners to measure whether the ad did anything. Nobody does that now. What replaced the measurement is a feeling. A vibe. A bedtime story the industry tells itself so it can sleep. We enriched the impression. Except they only enriched themselves, and the beauty of the line is you cannot audit a feeling. You cannot subpoena a vibe. Try it. Call your DSP and ask to interrogate the enrichment. Bring a notary.
Let me explain why he is right, and I am sorry in advance, because the reason is boring, and boring is exactly why you have never looked at it.
Three seats at the table.
The advertiser, who can only write checks. A wallet with a logo.
The media owner, who made the thing people wanted and can only sell the attention that actually exists.
The middle, who connects the two.
Only one of those three can manufacture money out of nothing. Not the advertiser. Not the media owner. It is the middle. The middle is the one seat that can mint margin where none was, through arbitrage, through fees stacked on fees, through buying inventory as a principal and selling it back to you at a markup you are explicitly not allowed to see.
The advertiser is a price taker. The publisher is a price taker. The middle sets the price and keeps the books. It designed the game and it referees the game and somehow, every single quarter, the house is up. Funny how that works.
And before anyone emails me that this is a digital problem, that the nerds broke advertising with their auctions, no. The game is identical on television, where principal and proprietary deals let the middle quietly clip the budget and starve the people who made the show you actually wanted to watch. Digital did not invent the skim. Digital just gave it broadband.
You do not have to take his word for it. Take the ANA's.
When the association put log-level data from twenty-one major marketers under a microscope, it found that thirty-six cents of every dollar entering a demand-side platform reached an actual human.
Thirty-six.
The other sixty-four went to non-viewable ads, to fraud, to made-for-advertising sites that exist for no reason on God's earth except to catch programmatic dollars as they fall, and to the tolls the DSPs and SSPs collect for routing your money through their pipes. And that thirty-six was before anyone counted agency fees, which the study did not. So the real number is worse. It is always worse. The number is a floor and the floor is on fire.
That study was two years ago, and yes, things improved, and I want you to watch exactly how much.
The number moved from 36 cents to 41. Five whole pennies. Pop the champagne.
Nearly 90% of programmatic spend now runs through private marketplaces, the clean rooms the industry swore would fix this. Everyone moved into the clean room and the leak walked in behind them and sat down.
The waste is still north of twenty billion dollars a year.
Then, this year, the ANA asked advertisers a different question. Not how much is wasted. How do you feel about your agency's transparency. A decade of studies, benchmarks, task forces, white papers, signed pledges, and panels at Cannes where everyone wore linen and agreed to do better.
The answer came back largely unchanged.
Ten years. Largely unchanged. The leak got smaller. The plumbing did not change.
And then James McDonald replied to Manning's post with one sentence and a trailing ellipsis. Imagine if a media agency also owned a huge trove of third-party data.
He did not name names. He is more polite than I am.
Last November, Omnicom closed its $13.5 billion swallowing of Interpublic, 357 days after announcing it, and built the largest advertising holding company on the planet. And the crown jewel, the asset the executives kept waving at Wall Street like a relic, was not a single creative shop.
It was Acxiom. The data broker IPG bought back in 2018. Acxiom now sits dead center of the new Omnicom, the engine that will, in the official corporate language, power the entire media ecosystem.
Sit with the shape of that for one second. The same holding company:
Advises you on what to buy.
Executes the buy.
Increasingly stands in the middle of the buy as a principal, trading against you.
And owns one of the deepest pools of consumer data in the business, which it sells back into the system that it also runs.
Arielle Garcia of Check My Ads has noted the small magic trick in calling a third-party data broker your source of first-party data. Squint hard enough and everyone's data is your data, and the receipt is in a language only they read.
So now they need a new story, because the old one is getting embarrassing, and they found one, and it has a name.
The name is AI.
Every holding company on earth is now selling artificial intelligence as the thing that will finally make the spend efficient, the targeting precise, the impression genuinely, this-time-we-mean-it enriched. Omnicom is selling Acxiom plus AI as its singular edge. The pitch never changes. It is the same pitch in a new font. Give us more of the budget. Trust the black box. This time the magic reaches the consumer. We promise. We pinky-promise. We enriched the impression.
Here is what I think actually happens, and it is the part nobody in the comments will say while they are busy liking the post.
The thing they have built is not new. We have seen this shape before. There is a word for an object you hand your gold to, that promises everything and produces nothing, that you dance around anyway because the alternative is admitting what you already know. It is older than advertising. It is older than the wheel.
That is the part I cannot fit up here. We enriched the impression. They enriched themselves. And next week the machine will do it for them, automatically, faster, and call the sound of its own voice progress.
The free edition is the diagnosis. The reckoning is below.
The man who built the machine, then spent twenty years explaining exactly how it skims you.
Nick Manning is not an outsider throwing rocks. That is what makes him dangerous. He spent 27 years inside the media agency business, co-founding Manning Gottlieb Media, the shop now known as MG OMD, and running OMD's UK group as CEO. He helped build the thing. He knows where the bodies are because he was in the room when some of them were buried.
Then he switched sides.
In 2016 he led the Ebiquity team on the ANA's media transparency initiative and co-wrote the recommendations that came out of it. That study is the reason "transparency" became a word advertisers say out loud, the reason procurement departments started demanding log-level data, the reason there is a decade of benchmarks and task forces and Cannes panels to argue about at all. He did not write a think piece. He helped write the document that started the fight.
In 2018 he founded Encyclomedia International to do the work independently, from the advertiser's side of the table, where the checks get written and the answers rarely arrive. He chairs Media Marketing Compliance. He writes a monthly column for The Media Leader. And he runs a LinkedIn feed where he says the quiet part at length, as usual, which is his own phrase, because he knows exactly what he is doing.
His targets are specific and he names them. Principal media, where the agency buys inventory and resells it to its own client at a margin nobody is allowed to see. Inventory media. Value banks. The trading desk that quietly trades against the people paying for it. He has called principal media an unhealthy state of affairs to its face, in print, and then waited, politely, for the defense that never quite arrives.
Ten years into the transparency decade, the numbers have barely moved and Manning is still here, still asking the same four questions no holding company enjoys answering.
Who gets paid. How much. For what. And does the client actually know.
People get uncomfortable when he asks where the money went.
That is generally how you know he found it.
Here is the uncomfortable part. A diagnosis you cannot finish is just a better-written version of the feeling you already had.
You know the impression got "enriched." You know somebody got rich and it probably wasn't you. The free edition named the problem. What it didn't give you is the thing underneath it, the part where we stop counting cents and name what kind of object the industry actually built, why ten years of audits could not touch it, and what happens when the excuse stops needing a human mouth to say it.
That part is below the wall. So is the golden calf. So is the arithmetic on the AI spread, the math that turns "the algorithm optimized it" from a shrug into a number. So is the line that explains, finally, why none of this is fate.
Here is why it costs something.
ADOTAT exists to do the work the holding companies are betting you will not do. That work does not get expensed by the people it makes uncomfortable. It gets paid for by you. And in a business where 64 cents of every dollar disappears into a fire nobody is allowed to open, paying for the one writer in the room with no seat at the trading desk, no principal media to resell, no data furnace to feed, is the closest thing to an honest transaction left on the menu. You are not buying a newsletter. You are funding the only party with nothing to skim.
ADOTAT+ is for the buyers who do the work. The CMO with a board meeting. The procurement lead with a review. The agency executive whose client just asked the uncomfortable question and is sitting there, waiting, while the answer is still behind a wall.
The fire is still lit. You are still holding the gold.
The free edition can tell you that. It cannot tell you what to do about it. The rest of this can.
Subscribe to our premium content at ADOTAT+ to read the rest.
Become a paying subscriber to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.