Why the Commission Model Fails Challenger Brands And What Transparent Media Delivers

In a media landscape built for scale, the traditional commission model has held on longer than it should have. It made sense in an era of a few national networks, predictable buys, and limited fragmentation. But today’s environment is built on thousands of channels, shifting formats, and complex programmatic supply chains.

For challenger brands, brands that compete through proximity, agility, and familiarity, the cracks in the commission model become real business risks. And it’s time we name that plainly.

This isn’t about calling out agencies. It’s about acknowledging that the structure so many of us inherited is no longer aligned with the needs of the modern marketer or with the responsibility that our industry has to be stewards of our clients’ investments.

The Core Problem: Commissions Incentivize Spend, Not Strategy

A commission-based fee structure ties agency revenue directly to how much money a client spends.

For a challenger brand—whose edge comes from precision, not volume, that creates three issues:

1. Incentives skew toward “more,” not “what works.”

If an agency’s revenue grows when your spend grows, there’s built-in tension. A channel may be underperforming, audience quality might be slipping, or creative may need refinement, but the structure rewards scale over scrutiny.

Challenger brands need the opposite. They need partners who are rewarded for disciplined spend, investments that sharpen familiarity, not inflate impressions.

2. It hides the true cost of media.

Commissions obscure where your dollars actually go. That makes it harder for CMOs and Heads of Growth to report accurately to their CFOs and CEOs. Without line-of-sight, challenger brands can’t confidently defend budgets or evaluate ROI.

Transparency isn’t a “nice to have” anymore. It’s the backbone of accountable media in an era of rising acquisition costs.

3. It muddies the value of the work.

Strategy, audience insights, creative testing, measurement frameworks, these are the levers that actually drive outcomes. When all of that gets bundled into a percentage of spend, you lose clarity on what you’re investing in and what it’s worth.

For smaller brands, where each dollar has a job, knowing the value of every service matters.

Why Transparency Is the Real Competitive Advantage

The shift away from commission isn’t about punishing agencies. It’s about strengthening the partnership between marketers and media experts aligning incentives so that everyone rows in the same direction.

You get truer accountability.

When fees are clear and separate from spend, you can see exactly what you’re buying and what you’re getting back.

It becomes easier to explain results internally. It becomes easier to evaluate what’s working. And it becomes easier to make decisions grounded in performance rather than precedent.

You free your strategy from structural bias.

Without financial pressure tied to budget size, your media partner can recommend the honest mix, sometimes that’s decreasing spend, shifting toward more efficient channels, or investing in owned or earned media efforts that don’t generate commission at all.

Challenger brands win when the strategy favors signal over scale.

You gain clarity in a chaotic ecosystem.

Media has never been more complex. Transparency gives you the visibility needed to navigate it: where your dollars went, why they went there, and what they returned.

That clarity builds trust. And trust compounds over time.

What Challenger Brands Deserve (and the Industry Should Champion)

Instead of prescribing a list of questions that put agencies on the defensive, there’s a more constructive path, championing what all brands should expect from a modern, transparent media partnership.

These expectations don’t undermine our peers. They set a bar that lifts the industry as a whole:

A fee structure that aligns incentives with outcomes.

Whether that’s flat-fee, tiered, or value-based, the structure should ensure that performance, not spend, drives the partnership forward.

Clear visibility into where every dollar goes.

Not to nitpick. Not to undermine. But to enable better financial stewardship. When brands understand the path from budget → channel → outcome, the whole ecosystem works better.

Unbundled strategy and execution.

Strategy deserves to be valued on its own. So does planning, buying, optimization, and measurement. Separating the work helps brands see what they’re paying for and helps agencies elevate the craft.

Shared commitment to long-term familiarity, not short-term noise.

Challenger brands don’t win by shouting louder. They win because they feel closer, more human, more understood. Transparent media structures enable agencies to prioritize familiarity-building investments even when they don’t drive big spend.

A Call for Industry Evolution, Not Industry Critique

The commission model wasn’t built with bad intent. It just wasn’t built for now.

Marketers deserve partners whose incentives match theirs. Agencies deserve business models that honor the work. And challenger brands deserve media structures that help them grow without waste, guesswork, or hidden layers.

Transitioning away from commission is a step toward:

• fairer partnerships

• clearer financial reporting

• stronger media performance

• and a healthier, more trusted industry ecosystem

This is the direction our industry is heading and it’s a win for everyone willing to make the shift.

At Campfire, we believe challenger brands grow faster when they feel known, not just seen. And transparency is one of the most powerful tools we have to make that possible.

FAQ: The Commission Model & Challenger Brands

Why is the commission model considered outdated in paid media?

Because it was built for an era of limited channels and simple buys. Today’s media environment is fragmented, algorithmic, and complex. A fee model tied to spend, not strategic value, creates misaligned incentives.

How does the commission model hurt challenger brands specifically?

Challenger brands thrive on precision over volume. Commission-based structures reward scale, which can inflate spend unnecessarily and obscure where dollars are going. Smaller brands need transparency, efficiency, and right-sized investment.

Is the commission model unethical?

No. It’s simply outdated. The issue isn’t bad actors, it’s that the model no longer fits the reality of how media works today.

How does transparency improve media performance?

When brands see where every dollar goes, they can optimize smarter. It improves internal reporting, strengthens trust, and enables better decision-making across channels.

If we move away from commissions, what replaces them?

Modern agencies use flat fees, tiered fees, hourly models, or value-based pricing, structures that reward strategic work and aligned outcomes rather than spend size.

Does abandoning commissions make media more expensive?

Usually not. Budgets get more efficient because agencies aren’t incentivized to increase spend. Dollars go further toward channels that truly perform.

Why isn’t every agency ditching the commission model?

Because change takes time. Many agencies were built on commission-based structures and need to retool operations to shift. But the momentum toward transparency is growing quickly.

What’s in it for CMOs and Heads of Growth?

Cleaner forecasting. Clearer reporting. Easier conversations with finance teams. And a higher level of confidence that spend is working as intended.

Will moving away from commissions improve ROI?

In most cases yes, because the focus shifts from “spend more” to “spend better.” Challenger brands benefit the most from this shift.