In the first of a regular series of columns, Bench Media co-founder and COO Shai Luft dives into the current wave of advertising holding company restructures and whether they are still the best default option for brands.
For many mid-market brands, the current wave of holding company restructures may not feel like strategic evolution, but more like what some quietly describe as ‘holdco hell’ – a gradual slide down the priority list inside organisations increasingly focused on their own reinvention.
Over the past year, the largest advertising groups have begun materially reshaping themselves. WPP has stepped away from the traditional holding company model amid a major global restructure; Omnicom and Interpublic Group have pursued consolidation framed as strategic scale but widely interpreted as margin protection; and Dentsu continues to rationalise its international footprint.
This is not simply cosmetic change, it’s structural recalibration.
Of course, public companies must protect margins and satisfy shareholders, that is business. What deserves scrutiny is why brands continue to default to these same organisations as the safest choice while they are visibly absorbed in restructuring.
In my own conversations with mid-market marketers over the past 12 to 18 months, I’ve heard a similar concern surface repeatedly. It’s not anger or outrage. It’s a sense that something has subtly shifted – that their business no longer carries the same senior attention it once did.
For global advertisers operating across dozens of markets, scale still has logic, but for brands spending under $10 million per annum in media, the equation is different.
Inside a multi-billion-dollar group, a $6 million advertiser does not materially influence performance. It does not command sustained executive attention, and often, it competes for oversight in an environment increasingly focused inward, and the attention naturally concentrates around the largest accounts. That is sensible corporate behaviour, and sadly, it is also where the mid-market squeeze begins.
Having been involved in numerous pitches and agency transitions over the years, I’ve seen how restructuring cycles create instability that isn’t always visible externally. Senior involvement becomes less consistent, teams skew more junior as experienced operators are deployed to larger clients, turnover increases during restructure cycles and strategy becomes more standardised as efficiency is prioritised.
This is how holdco hell emerges. And it is not through incompetence, but through incentives. When executive bandwidth is consumed by consolidation and margin protection, clients that do not materially influence group earnings can drift from strategic focus to operational throughput.
The elephant in the room
But let’s consider another layer. As holding companies navigate margin pressure, many have leaned further into principal-based trading models, where media inventory is purchased and resold rather than transacted solely through disclosed agency remuneration. These arrangements are legitimate, but they introduce a more complex incentive environment.
When inventory exposure, trading commitments and profitability targets sit alongside client objectives, alignment becomes more nuanced. Large multinational advertisers typically have the audit capability and leverage to govern these structures closely, but mid-market brands often do not.
In my experience, most mid-market brands don’t spend much time thinking about trading structures. They assume recommendations are purely performance-led. When inventory exposure, trading commitments and profitability targets sit alongside client objectives, alignment becomes more nuanced. Large multinational advertisers typically have the audit capability and leverage to govern these structures closely, but mid-market brands often do not.
This is not an allegation of misconduct, it is an acknowledgement that incentives shape behaviour.
At the same time, the traditional advantages of scale are narrowing. AI, automation and programmatic infrastructure have reduced barriers to sophisticated trading. Data capability is no longer exclusive to global networks.
The structural case for complexity is less absolute than it once was.
For mid-market advertisers, the more pressing question is not which logo feels safest, it is whether their business will genuinely matter.
If your annual media investment sits below $10 million, you are buying attention, experience and accountability and seeking consistent senior counsel and a partner whose commercial success is meaningfully connected to your own.
From what I’ve observed, the brands that grow fastest are those whose agency partners are genuinely invested in their success – where leadership time is accessible, teams are stable and your business is strategically meaningful within the agency.
For these brands, the real risk may not be choosing an agency that genuinely cares and is structurally invested in your growth. It may be remaining embedded within a system optimised primarily for scale, margin and shareholder return. For some, that system increasingly resembles holdco hell, not through intent, but through economics.
Holding companies are not obsolete. For advertisers with extraordinary global complexity, they remain entirely appropriate partners. But as the giants of the industry rebuild themselves, brands should reassess their assumptions and decide if scale works for them or if they are better off staying clear of holdco hell.
