The Good Stuff Happens in the Kitchen

A good strategy is the result of coherent decisions.

This over that.

This until that.

This even at the expense of that.

But which decisions matter most in making a strategy work hard?

Let's focus on media, where it's (somewhat) easier to see decisions manifest.

I'm fascinated by a datapoint from the WARC Multiplier Effect study; examining the differences in media strategy between high-performing brands and low-performing brands, brand consultancy Prophet 's data shows that there is no meaningful difference in the types of channels these organizations invested in. Strong brands and businesses were investing in the same channels at the same proportion as those getting weak returns from advertising.

So why are media strategy conversations so focused on channel allocations?

Channel Allocation is a "Front-of-House" decision. You can easily tell the difference, and most people have a strong opinion, about the different virtues of TV vs. Radio, CTV vs. OOH, Social vs. Display; and feel empowered to judge the potential of a campaign based on the relative proportion of those elements. "Scenario A has more CTV than Scenario B, that feels stronger."

But in media, as in most areas of strategy, the "Back-of-House" decisions have significantly more impact on the quality of the strategy, and the efficacy of the approach.

When it comes to media, those decisions are less about "What" is bought in terms of channels, it's more about the "Where, when, with, who, and why"

Where - aligning media with physical availability, either IRL or via URL, is the single most important factor in making media work as hard as it should.

When - seasonality + channel flighting factors dramatically impact audience retention of messaging; avoid peanut-butter spreads that dilute your effectiveness. Vary investment over time, especially to go big in moments that matter.

With - channel synergies unlock dramatically more effective outcomes. It's less a decision of which channel, it's about which touchpoints are we making work together (not just in coordinated timing/geographies, but in all technical integrations as well). How tactics can be coordinated with non-traditional media elements is often a crucial driver of incremental attention through earned media, more attentive environments, or simply greater frequency.

Who - "there's limited riches in the niches" - the more you narrow your target with audience data signals (either first-party CRM data, platform-provided affinity/interest data, or 3rd party licensed data), the more expensive every impression becomes. We've seen audience data that represents more than 75% of an effective CPM across different channels - THAT'S INSANE. Be smart about controlling efficacy lost due to targeting decisions. Bonus points for designing campaign ecosystems that reinforce the brand's link to specific category entry points (that's a 301 level concept)

Why - all buying & trading systems are based on driving efficiency on some level; what you choose to orient the buy towards can sink your overall efficacy if the buying system misinterprets the campaign's overall objectives. Look for ways to override most buying systems' short-term bias to trade based on media attributes that contribute to longer-term efficacy.

These "Back-of-House " decisions are rarely confirmed or debated when evaluating communications strategies. They don't appear on most flowcharts and ATBs, but they are the most significant decisions in driving campaign efficacy.

I'm focusing so much on these factors because they are often overlooked in industry debates about how to improve media strategy and buying.

Two of the most dominant conversations about media in 2025 are about the rise of Principal Based Buying (agencies buying and reselling, opaquely, media to their clients), and the shift towards "lots of littles" (aggregating a series of tactics together to deliver reach/impact, rather than rely on a smaller number of high-reach channels) as a reaction to media & cultural fragmentation.

"Lots of Littles" is inherently about channel allocation. Shifting from more focused campaign structures to more distributed ones. I absolutely agree that it's more likely we'll find success in the near future with broad-scale orchestration of the "lots of littles" campaign approach. BUT, in terms of contributing to the major decisions that impact campaign returns, it's a secondary or tertiary consideration. The "Littles" we choose to make and coordinate with other littles must still be delivered in the right geographies, at the right moments, alongside other tactics, against proper category audience CEPs in order to make an impact.

Principal based buying is driven by a lot of factors. The relentless pressure on agency revenue has had a dramatic impact on how (especially large) media agencies have had to shift their business models in order to sustain some meaningful level of margin in their business. The most successful (as of March 2025) at a holding-company level of strategy, are: (1) shifting clients towards taking advantage of proprietary tech and data services (either in the form of licensing & subscriptions to tech platforms or in appending agency-owned 3rd party data segments into digital buys at a dramatic markup to the buying CPM), of (2) engaging in principal buying, buying media directly, usually at a 10-30% discount based on volume, and then reselling that inventory at a (usually non-transparent) markup back to clients. Collectively, these two revenue streams are replacing billed fees and commissions, which are under significantly more price pressure from procurement departments, as the core drivers of sustained profit for media agencies.

The problem with this shift...neither of those things - adding tech & often meaningless data OR becoming a media seller rather than acting as a fiduciary agent - make campaigns work harder. They are "Front of House" conversations that are adjacent to efficacy. Just because the media MAY come at a discount overall, you still have to align all the other relevant back of house decisions to make the campaign effective - and by all accounts, the focus shifting to trading tonnage has decreased the level of care and objectivity these agencies are brining to bear on their clients business.

These backroom shenanigans may be necessary for large scale media agencies to survive, but it is coming at the expense of (1) good counsel to brands, and (2) damaging the reputation of the industry as a whole, as these agencies and their talent have to try to defend these approaches as smart things for brands to take advantage of; the "thought leadership" acts more as mis- and dis-information.

Just like every business that tries to win by discounting - it's a drug that only works for a short time. Ask Bed Bath & Beyond. Principal Based Buying is a race to the bottom.

So while the industry drifts into (good, worthwhile) conversations about the virtue (or IMHO lack thereof) principal based buying, let's spare at least some thought for the Back of House impact of these