'Media isn’t a commodity. Treating it like one is a massive mistake': Ebiquity CEO

What has the transition from entrepreneur to group CEO been like—and how have you navigated the shift in scale, scrutiny and expectations?

It’s been an incredible shift. You go from running a challenger business—fast-paced, high growth, but very much a scale-up—to leading a publicly listed global organisation. The intensity is different. In a public company, every decision is under scrutiny. There’s transparency across every dimension—financials, operations, people, performance. Every quarter, everything is laid bare. That creates a very different kind of accountability. Clients see it, competitors see it, staff see it. When I founded Digital Decisions (which was acquired by Ebiquity in 2020), we had a very sharp value proposition and a certain freedom in how we executed. That mindset doesn’t disappear, but as group CEO, you have to think about structure, governance, responsibility to the board and shareholders, long-term continuity—not just innovation. So, it’s a different lens. But I think what makes it work is staying close to why you’re doing it. 

Ebiquity has long been associated with forensic media auditing. What’s been required to reposition the business for forward-looking advisory work?

We’ve been very deliberate about that. The legacy of Ebiquity, especially in the UK and Europe, has been anchored in audit. And to be fair, that played a critical role in holding agencies accountable when the media supply chain lacked transparency. But today’s challenges are different. We’ve shifted the centre of gravity of the business. Now, the majority of our revenue comes from media performance and effectiveness consulting. We still do contract compliance and audit work through FirmDecisions and some legacy scopes, but our real growth is in future-facing solutions—helping brands improve their media investment decisions, optimise models, integrate better with partners. The repositioning wasn’t just about language or product—it was cultural. It meant shifting the mindset from forensic policing to collaborative problem-solving. We’re not looking back to catch someone out—we’re working forward to help brands and agencies get more from their media.

Has the industry’s perception of Ebiquity changed? Are agencies more willing to engage?

It’s changed significantly. There used to be some defensiveness—like, “Oh no, Ebiquity’s here, they’re going to audit us and uncover something.” But now, when we walk into the room, it’s, “We know you’re here to make things work better.” We’ve spent a lot of time rebuilding relationships with the agency ecosystem. Our mantra is “better media, together.” And I really mean that. Platforms, agencies, auditors—we’re all part of the same supply chain. If we work together with transparency and shared objectives, everyone benefits. We’ve seen great collaboration with WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, IPG, Dentsu, and the platforms—Meta, Google, Amazon, even TikTok. It’s still nuanced market by market, but the progress is real.

In markets where transparency issues persist, how do you help clients reduce exposure?

This is where the “trust but verify” model is crucial. We help clients set the right scopes—define what good looks like, agree on clear KPIs, put proper checks and balances in place. Then we independently validate whether those expectations are being met. It’s about setting up systems that reduce the risk of waste, fraud, or non-compliance. Are agencies delivering inventory as contracted? Are rebates being reported transparently? Are DSPs and tech platforms acting in the client’s best interest? We help answer those questions. And it’s not just about catching bad behaviour—it’s about identifying inefficiencies, blind spots, or misaligned incentives. And we do it in a way that’s not hostile. We want to create an ecosystem where everyone’s incentivised to do the right thing.

How are media decisions being valued in the boardroom today, are they finally seen as strategic, or still treated as executional?

It’s better than it was five years ago, but we’ve still got a long way to go. Media often gets delegated—CMOs focus on brand, performance, innovation, and media gets treated as a buying function. But media decisions are business decisions. They affect topline growth and brand equity. And the lines are blurring—look at retail media, data clean rooms, AI-based optimisation. You can’t just treat media as executional or like a commodity. The CMOs who get it are investing in internal capability, integrating creative and media thinking, and getting closer to measurement. That’s where the magic is. It’s also why we’re seeing more clients look at in-housing—not always full scale, but hybrid operating models that give them more visibility and control.

So are CMOs still measuring success through the wrong lens when it comes to media performance?

Yes, many are. Attribution is still a real challenge. When campaigns perform well, there’s a tendency for everyone to claim credit. And when they don’t, it’s easy to shift the blame. That creates noise. We’re also at a point where AI is embedded across campaign workflows—planning, optimisation, even production—yet some clients are still working on time-and-materials models. That kind of model doesn’t really work anymore. We need to move toward output-based and outcome-based frameworks, but that also means setting the right foundations for measurement. It’s not just about making the process efficient—it’s about making it accountable.

What are the biggest shifts you’re seeing in agency pitch models?

Pitches are becoming more integrated. Clients want fewer handoffs, more accountability. We’re seeing briefs that combine media, creative, production, and commerce. That’s a good thing. But it also makes evaluation more complex. How do you compare apples and oranges when different holding companies bring different strengths? The other shift is around remuneration. Time-based fees are increasingly under pressure, especially with AI entering the workflow. You can’t justify paying by the hour when automation is taking care of significant parts of the process. But outcome-based models are still tricky. Attribution is imperfect. There’s a lot of finger-pointing. We help clients structure models that drive performance, not politics.

So, what does effective media measurement look like today?

It needs to be multi-layered. There’s no single source of truth. You need econometrics to understand long-term ROI. You need brand lift to measure perception. You need attention data to understand quality. And you need geo testing to isolate impact. One thing we’re pushing hard is attention-based planning. We worked with Lumen on a major study showing how attention correlates with business outcomes. Trusted journalism, for example, scores really high—but many brands are blocking those environments because of keyword sensitivities. That’s a disconnect. We need to fix that.

If journalism performs so well, why do brands avoid hard news environments?

Fear—plain and simple. A few bad headlines, a screenshot goes viral, and the next thing you know, entire categories are being excluded via blocklists. It’s overcorrection. The irony is that news used to be the safest environment. It was credible, trustworthy, brand-safe. But now, a flight ad next to a crash story triggers panic. Consumers aren’t that fragile. They understand context. We need to stop treating adjacency like a binary threat. Trusted news drives attention, trust, and effectiveness. Avoiding it isn’t just bad for journalism, it’s bad for business.

How are clients approaching brand safety on X in the Musk era?

It’s an unprecedented situation. The litigation strategy—suing advertisers, suing GARM, suing the WFA—it’s a pressure tactic. And it’s working to a degree. Brands are asking us, “What’s the minimum spend we can do to stay off the radar?” That’s not normal. There’s brand safety tech on X, but it doesn’t fix the environment. When your feed is full of hate speech, disinformation, and divisive content, adjacency controls don’t solve the underlying issue. And there’s a deeper question: Do you want to be on a platform that’s actively attacking the advertising ecosystem? For some brands, the answer is no. For others, it’s complicated—especially if their audiences are still there.

Is Meta facing similar pushback?

Yes, but for different reasons. Meta’s shift toward community moderation and away from centralised fact-checking is raising eyebrows. It blurs accountability. And as with X, there’s concern about the amplification of harmful content. But Meta is harder to walk away from. Instagram and Facebook are core to most media plans. So clients are adapting strategies quietly—shifting spend, adjusting placements, tightening controls—but not exiting outright. There’s too much value still in the ecosystem.

Mark Zuckerberg recently said AI will revolutionise advertising—that all you need is an objective and a bank account. Is he right?

For small businesses, maybe. If you’re running a dropshipping business, that might be all you need. But for large advertisers with complex goals, nuanced targeting, and reputation concerns? It’s not that simple. AI can optimise a lot, but it can’t think strategically. It can’t set business objectives. It can’t balance performance and brand equity. The industry still needs smart people who understand context and nuance. I think Meta knows that—they’ve softened that messaging in recent weeks.

What’s your view on the proposed Omnicom-IPG merger?

It would reduce choice in the market. Fewer holdcos means fewer truly global alternatives. But whether it’s good or bad depends on what they do with it. If they combine capabilities well—like bringing together Flywheel, Axiom, and data-driven media with strong creative—they could build something competitive to Publicis. But it will come down to integration. 

Finally, with a potential US recession on the horizon, how is Asia-Pacific being reprioritised?

We’re already seeing a shift. Some brands are reducing exposure to US volatility and looking at where growth is more stable—APAC, Europe, parts of LATAM. Jaguar Land Rover pausing US shipments is one example. We’ve got 18 offices across the region—Singapore, China, Australia, India—and we’re supporting clients who are reallocating budgets, rebalancing global portfolios, and adjusting regional strategy. APAC isn’t just a “growth market” anymore—it’s a strategic pillar.