It’s Not About Ownership. It’s About Control.

By Rob McLaughlin, CEO and Co-Founder, AUDIENCES

Publicis has completed its $2.2 billion acquisition of LiveRamp, bringing together one of the world's largest advertising groups with one of the industry's most established data connectivity platforms.

It's a significant moment for our industry. Not simply because of the scale of the deal, but because of what it represents.

The boundaries between data, identity, technology, media buying and measurement are becoming increasingly blurred. As more of these capabilities come together under common ownership, the question isn't simply who owns the infrastructure. It's who controls the data flowing through it.

For brands, that means retaining control over how their first-party data is accessed, activated and used to inform media investment. For data providers, it's about protecting the value of their intelligence and maintaining control over how it reaches the market.

Ownership and control aren't the same thing. And as the advertising ecosystem becomes more interconnected, that distinction matters more than ever.

When integration becomes consolidation

The logic behind the acquisition is clear. Bringing data, activation and measurement closer together has the potential to improve efficiency, reduce fragmentation and deliver better outcomes for advertisers. There's a lot to welcome in that ambition.

But integration and consolidation aren't necessarily the same thing.

For years, brands have relied on a complex ecosystem of agencies, technology companies, data providers and media owners. Each performs a different function, often with different commercial interests. As those functions converge, the relationships become more complicated.

When an organisation has interests across the infrastructure used to activate data, the technology informing decisions and the media investment itself, how do advertisers maintain genuine freedom of choice?

How do they ensure recommendations are driven by business outcomes rather than commercial incentives elsewhere in the ecosystem?

And how easily can they change partners without disrupting their data strategy?

These questions aren't unique to Publicis. They reflect a wider structural shift in advertising.

Regulation is already asking questions

The regulatory scrutiny surrounding the acquisition is particularly revealing. In October, the US Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed consent agreement requiring safeguards around LiveRamp's neutrality, fair access to its services and the protection of commercially sensitive customer information.

Publicis has committed to maintaining LiveRamp's independence and interoperability. Those commitments matter. But the fact that regulators considered specific protections necessary tells us something about the strategic importance of data infrastructure.

This is no longer simply a question of technology integration. It's about competition, access and influence across the advertising supply chain. There is also an important distinction between regulatory responsibility and commercial control. Privacy legislation such as GDPR places clear obligations on organisations determining how and why personal data is processed. Those responsibilities don't disappear when technology or media partners become involved.

Yet a business can retain legal responsibility for its data while becoming commercially dependent on the infrastructure required to activate it. And that's where the conversation needs to go further.

Owning your data isn't the same as controlling it

Brands have invested heavily in first-party data, cloud infrastructure and customer intelligence. They've spent years building these assets, improving governance and developing the ability to understand their customers more effectively. But owning that intelligence is only part of the equation.

Can brands activate it across the media environments they choose? Can they change agencies or technology partners without rebuilding their capabilities? Do they have full visibility of how their audiences are being used and where their media investment is going?

And critically, can they distinguish between recommendations made in their commercial interests and those shaped by the incentives of the wider supply chain?

None of this assumes that integrated businesses cannot act independently or deliver excellent outcomes. Many do.

But as the ecosystem becomes more concentrated, transparency and accountability become more important, not less.

The real test of control isn't where your data sits. It's how freely you can use it, and how confidently you can account for the decisions made with it.

What about the businesses providing the data?

There's another part of this conversation that deserves equal attention. Data providers, publishers and retailers have invested significantly in developing their own audience intelligence. For many, commercialising that intelligence represents an important growth opportunity.

But as data connectivity and media activation become more closely integrated, they face their own questions.

Who controls access to their audiences? Who determines the commercial terms? How much visibility do they retain over where their data is activated and the value it creates?

And are they developing sustainable routes to market, or becoming increasingly dependent on a handful of intermediaries?

Distribution is essential to making data valuable. But it shouldn't come at the expense of the independence of those creating that value. The same principle applies to brands and data providers alike: connectivity should expand commercial opportunity, not restrict choice.

Control should remain with the customer

The Publicis and LiveRamp deal is another indication of how central first-party data, identity and activation have become to the future of advertising. Consolidation isn't inherently a bad thing. Done well, it can improve interoperability, reduce complexity and deliver genuine value. But the industry needs to ensure that greater connectivity doesn't simply create new forms of dependency. Brands should know how their data is being used, where their media investment goes and whose interests are being served.

Data providers should retain control over how their intelligence reaches the market and the commercial value it generates. The future of data activation shouldn't be determined by who owns the most infrastructure.

It should be determined by who controls the data, who makes the decisions and who benefits from the value being created.

That control should remain firmly with the businesses whose data and investment are at stake.

‍