For many advertisers, the media agency relationship remains one of the most important (and least systematically reviewed) parts of the marketing ecosystem.
That may sound surprising, given the scale of investment involved. But in practice, contracts are often left in place for years with only limited updates, remuneration models evolve without a full strategic rethink, and governance processes tend to adapt reactively rather than by design.
In a stable media environment, that may have been manageable. Today, it is not.
The Italian market is becoming more complex across almost every dimension: channel mix, data infrastructure, retail media, advanced TV, performance expectations, technology layers, and the internal pressure on marketing leaders to prove effectiveness with greater precision and speed.
Against that backdrop, 2026 feels like the right moment for advertisers in Italy to revisit three closely connected areas: media agency contracts, remuneration structures, and governance frameworks.
Not because every advertiser needs a pitch immediately. But because many agency relationships are now operating under assumptions that no longer reflect how media actually works.
Many contracts still reflect an older media model: one where channels were more stable, roles were more clearly separated, and the agency’s scope was easier to define.
Today, agencies may touch strategy, planning, buying, data, analytics, technology integration, ad operations, ecommerce-related activity, retail media, content amplification and performance optimisation; often in combinations that vary by market, by brand or by business unit.
When contracts do not keep pace with this evolution, ambiguity increases: ambiguity around scope, ambiguity around responsibilities, and ambiguity around what is included, what is chargeable and what “good performance” actually means.
For advertisers, this creates risk. Not necessarily because something is wrong, but because too much depends on interpretation. And when interpretation becomes the operating model, control weakens.
Agency remuneration is often discussed only at the point of friction: when costs rise, when teams change, when delivery feels uneven, or when procurement asks difficult questions.
A better approach is to review remuneration before the relationship becomes strained. The central question is simple: does the current remuneration model still match the work being done?
In many cases, the answer is only partially.
A model that worked well for a more traditional planning-and-buying remit may no longer be appropriate if the agency is now expected to support more advanced analytics, faster optimisation cycles, platform coordination, more granular reporting, or cross-functional collaboration.
Equally, some advertisers may be paying for complexity without being fully clear on the value they are receiving in return.
This is why remuneration should not be reviewed in isolation. It should be reviewed together with scope, outputs, governance and expectations. A cheaper model is not necessarily a better model. A more complex model is not necessarily a fairer one. What matters is alignment.
When advertisers talk about agency performance, they often focus on outcomes: business results, campaign effectiveness, quality of strategic thinking, speed of execution. All of these matter.
But in many cases, the real source of frustration sits one level deeper: governance.
How are decisions made?
Who owns which part of the process?
How are issues escalated?
What gets reviewed monthly, quarterly, annually?
Which KPIs are being tracked, and which ones are simply being reported?
How do local, regional and global stakeholders align?
Without a clear governance model, even a capable agency can underperform. Not because the talent is missing, but because the system around the relationship is poorly structured.
Revisiting contracts, remuneration and governance does not automatically mean launching a media pitch.
Sometimes the right answer is a pitch. Sometimes it is a contract review. Sometimes it is a governance reset. Sometimes it is simply a more structured performance framework.
The important thing is to diagnose the issue correctly.
If the relationship is fundamentally strong, but scope and expectations have drifted, a full review may be unnecessary. If accountability is weak, roles are blurred and performance can no longer be assessed with confidence, then a more formal process may be required.
The mistake is to assume that doing nothing is the safer option. In many cases, not reviewing the relationship simply allows misalignment to compound over time.
What Italian Advertisers Should Be Asking Now
Does our current contract reflect the real scope of work being delivered today?
Are roles, responsibilities and decision rights clearly defined?
Is the remuneration model still aligned with outputs, complexity and value?
Do we have enough visibility to assess performance fairly?
Are governance routines helping the relationship, or just maintaining it?
These are not procurement questions alone. They are business questions.
Conclusion & Next Steps
The strongest agency relationships are not built only on chemistry or continuity. They are built on clarity: clarity of scope, clarity of expectations, clarity of economics, and clarity of governance.
That is why 2026 feels like the right moment for Italian advertisers to step back and examine whether their media agency model is still fit for purpose.
Not because change is always needed. But because confidence should be earned, not assumed.
At Abintus, advertisers make better decisions when they bring more structure, more transparency and more rigour to the way agency relationships are defined and managed.
Don't hesitate to reach out to us or schedule a call with us if you need support navigating these challenges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Author