Commentary

Legacy Ad Industry: Consolidation, Or 'Spiders In A Jar'?

  • by , Featured Contributor, March 19, 2026

The ad industry has never been bigger. Companies around the world today spend more than a trillion dollars annually on “commercial communication.” The profits of five of the six most valuable companies in the world today -- Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Apple -- are funded entirely or significantly by advertising. And more people see more ads more often today than ever before.

However, most of the companies that dominated advertising and media at the turn of the century, such as newspapers, magazines, yellow pages, radio and television companies, are in disarray, are contracting, or are gone.

Analysts and press politely say that the industry is “consolidating.” I say the polite euphemism doesn’t do justice to what's happening.

No, today the ad industry as we know it has entered its “spiders in a jar” phase, when, like spiders, they kill each other until there is only one left.

The five largest marketing services holding companies, whose collective market capitalizations are now smaller than a single demand-side platform, are publicly attacking each other's numbers, business models and practices (not that this is a new behavior; we had years of entertainment watching Sir Martin and John Wren trade barbs).

advertisement

advertisement

The “open web” has become a site of open warfare, as DSPs publicly attack SSPs for “hidden fees” and promulgating fraudulent inventory, while the largest agency company is attacking a large “transparent” DSP for its lack of transparency.

And for the large national and local television companies, the question is not who will survive their debt loads, but who will survive longer and better  leverage the likely bankruptcies that will follow when creditors take over control from equity holders -- each TV company hoping to emerge from the process more like Delta Airlines than General Motors. 

I understand why some might see this period as one of industry consolidation. I fear that it's more likely to look like “spiders in a jar.”

9 comments about "Legacy Ad Industry: Consolidation, Or 'Spiders In A Jar'?".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Phil Guarascio from PG Ventures LLC, March 19, 2026 at 5:11 p.m.

    you see the road ahead, clearly; what's missing in your view is the question regarding identifing the resources needed to effectively provide clients, the bill payers, with the elements they need to suceed. i have my views having managed agencies and othe marketing resources but will save them for the next time this subject comes up ( hint, DIY).

    phil guarascio

  2. Phil Guarascio from PG Ventures LLC, March 19, 2026 at 5:11 p.m.

    you see the road ahead, clearly; what's missing in your view is the question regarding identifing the resources needed to effectively provide clients, the bill payers, with the elements they need to suceed. i have my views having managed agencies and othe marketing resources but will save them for the next time this subject comes up ( hint, DIY).

    phil guarascio

  3. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, March 20, 2026 at 9:35 a.m.

    Dave, it's misleading to lump all of the "legacy media" together and  we must  draw a distinction between direct response/performance/attribution advertising and branding advertrising--the latter involves about 45% of all "ad spend". 

    Yes, radio, magazines and newspapers are fading but it's not only because of lost audiences. In fact, magazine readership for most of the now departed publications was at all time highs when they started their  fatal decline 15 years ago--and the same was true in the late 1960s and early 1970s when "Life" "Look" and "The Saturday Evening Post" folded. It wasn't a question of audience. Branding campaigns were stressed by rising TV CPM demands. Something had to give and most advertisers dcecided that they had to continue supportig "TV", not the other media. 

    The same situation prevails today and to make matters worse we are in a period of slowed econimic growth. On a national basis,"TV", which is now linear and CTV ,continues to increase its ad spend. Meanwhle the others you noted, You Tube, Meta, Amazon, etc. ,rely heavily on non-branding ad dollars and social media is making deep inroads  in local advertising--but not so for national branding--we both know why. 

    So, it's not a question of when will "legacy media" morph into You Tube, Meta, Amazon, etc clones to survive. The real problem is that when times were good hosts of stations,  cable channels magazines, etc. sprang up. Now, there are simply too many of them to be sustainable. In my upcoming book, "TV:Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow", I pose this question, "What would have happened if, in 1970 ,there were 15 or 20 TV networks copmpeting for viewers and ad dollars---not 3?" . The answer is obvious--that wouldn't compute--as Spock might have said. 

    So we are going to see a lot of consolidation in the next five years and many of the surplus media options will be eliminated one way or another--leaving the survivors in a more viable situation as business enterprises--if they are managed sensibly.But the distinction between branding and direct resonse advertising will remain in force. It won't become 100% direct response or anything close to that figure,

  4. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia replied, March 21, 2026 at 7:37 a.m.

    Phil, I think that the walled gardens have done a pretty good job pulling the resources together ... automated, integrated systems. Lots of insights and reporting, and not just to their media but to the market and their competition. Heavy focus on outcomes. Deep integrations into enterprise systems and sales systems.

  5. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia replied, March 21, 2026 at 7:40 a.m.

    Ed, while I certainly grew up in the era of Brand versus Direct Response as two direct world and never the two shall meet, that was an artificial separation driven by the capabilities (or limitations) in media and marketing channels of the past. Today, sophisticated maketers see their marketing and "Commerical communication" spend as fungible and certainly see search, for example, as advertising. And social media today looks more like postal mail of the past than any media we had in the 70's or 80s.

  6. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, March 21, 2026 at 8:25 p.m.

    Dave, I'm not suggesting that 100% of the ad dollars on social media are sales promo/direct response dollars--but a very high percentage of them come from such budgets.

    Also, I agree that many marketers that use natiional "TV"---linear and streaming---also have search/DR campaigns so in a sense, they regard such activities as "advertising". However, in  almost all cases, search/DR is handled by the marketer's sales organization, often in-house or using specialist agencies. The branding campauigns for the same marketers are usually the domain of the CMOs and brand managers and some combination of "creative" and "media" agencies.

    While these efforts are suposedly coordinated between the sales and brand groups they have very different approaches to media ---branding, long term; sales promo---short term. Which is why you see virtually zero search/DR money being placed in the upfront. 

  7. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia replied, March 21, 2026 at 9:38 p.m.

    Ed, my point is not that the majority of Meta ads don't have a performance oriented objective -- they do. My point is that it doesn't matter; they are all advertising. Brand ads are no more advertising than response ones are. Treating them separately is archaic in today's capacity to better measure results from all commercial communication and both short-term and long-term effects.

  8. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, March 22, 2026 at 8:03 a.m.

    Of course, Dave. However most marketers are organized to treat the two functions separately---despite the claim that they are coordinated. The  people who do branding at both the marketer and the agencies are not the same folks who handle the DR/search operations. Moreover, they don't think the same way or use the same metrics. So lumping both types of advertising itogether is fine--except most of the time nobody is deciding whether or not to use social media instead of "TV".--or the other way around.---or considering various combinations of the two. 

  9. Dave Morgan from Simulmedia replied, March 22, 2026 at 10:52 a.m.

    Ed, there is no question that many legacy marketers still organize this way, but increasingly less so. If you look at the companies driving marketing/ad spend growth today, they are smaller advertisers and e-commerce companies. Collectively, these companies are now outspending large brand advertisers and will increasingly drive the structure of our industry giong forward. Thus, I don't believe that the boxes of old that neatly divided brand and direct response spend in separate categories, budgets and departments are the way that we should be organizing our future, or our analysis of the industry.

Next story loading loading..