The tie-up of two giant ad holding companies, Omnicom and Interpublic Group, is moving forward, but with an unusual caveat.
With the Trump administration trying to fight what it considers an anti-conservative bias in corporate America, the Federal Trade Commission accepted a proposed consent order that would prohibit the companies from boycotting ad sellers based on their political or ideological viewpoints.
Under the order, advertisers can still choose where their ads run, but the agencies can’t direct ad spend based on political considerations and can’t rely on “exclusion lists” that are based on such viewpoints.
Given that many big advertisers don’t want their ads to appear on or near politically sensitive content, the order could push them further away from news.
Longtime ad industry analyst Brian Wieser said Monday’s move by the FTC fully politicizes advertising and puts already vulnerable news outlets at more risk.
“News was already in a perilous position,” he said. “It is easier to avoid it altogether.” He predicted other agencies would follow Omnicom and IPG’s lead.
“No one wants to make themselves a target,” he added.
Wieser also said that, despite the order’s intent, it wouldn’t necessarily help conservative publishers or platforms. With agencies reluctant to advise advertisers, brands might just stick with the big-name outlets they already know — like The New York Times.
That view was echoed by other ad industry insiders, some of whom said they saw tech giants like Meta and Google as potential beneficiaries.
Rishad Tobaccowala, a former exec at Publicis Groupe and now an advisor, said agencies would lean on algorithms to make advertising decisions, ultimately undermining themselves.
“At some point, someone will say, ‘Why do I have an agency?’ Marketing is all about perspective. This takes away agency from agencies. This is taking stuff away from human, craft, individualism. It’s only good for the Big Tech companies.”
The news business was already under pressure
Many brands have long avoided advertising with news outlets, even though studies have argued that advertising around news doesn’t negatively impact brand perception. The practice has gained steam, helped by tech companies like Integral Ad Science and DoubleVerify, which steer ads away from platforms that they deem “brand unsafe” or “unsuitable.”
Even during big news cycles like the pandemic, news publishers often struggle to monetize spikes in audience. That, and the ascendance of the tech giants, has put the squeeze on publishers. There were nearly 5,000 job cuts in the news business in 2024, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas, the highest since 2020, when it recorded about 16,000 news cuts.
With the rise of Trump, brand safety entered the culture wars. Trump’s allies argued that advertisers had boycotted conservative news sites.
Last year, Elon Musk’s X sued advertisers including Mars, Lego, and Nestlé, alleging they colluded to illegally boycott the platform. The advertisers pushed back, calling the suit an attempt by X to win back ad revenue it lost after Musk bought the platform and alienated advertisers. Musk played an influential role in Trump’s administration until leaving his post in May.
Another suit came from Rumble, a video platform that’s popular with conservatives. Rumble accused Diageo, the ad holding company WPP, and an ad trade group of colluding to boycott the platform. The defendants denied there was a conspiracy and argued Rumble wasn’t an attractive platform for them.
Legal action came from the other side of the political aisle on Monday.
Media Matters for America, a liberal advocacy group, sued the FTC, alleging the agency was retaliating for its reporting on X and Musk.
“The Trump administration has demonstrated that it will not hesitate to abuse the powers of the federal government to undermine the First Amendment and stifle dissent,” said Angelo Carusone, Media Matters’ president. “This highly politicized FTC investigation is part of that playbook.”
‘Devil will be in the detail’
The order confirms that brands can still advertise where they want. That will make the order’s impact theoretically manageable for the brands and agencies, said Ruben Schreurs, CEO of Ebiquity, a marketing consultancy.
But the order doesn’t define “political or ideological viewpoints,” which could lead to strange situations where banning even racist content could be considered ideological, Schreurs said.
“The devil will be in the detail and the enforcement,” he said.
The heads of Omnicom and IPG released a statement calling the order “mutually acceptable.”
“We are delighted that our transaction with Interpublic has cleared this significant regulatory hurdle,” said John Wren, Chairman & CEO of Omnicom.
“Today’s news is a notable step forward in the process of combining our companies and their deep pools of talent, complementary capabilities, and geographic strengths,” added Philippe Krakowsky, CEO of Interpublic.
Omnicom wants to take over IPG and create the largest ad agency company, with $25 billion in revenue based on 2024 figures. If approved in the second half of the year, the deal could better equip the companies to withstand the threat posed to agencies by AI and automation.
Read the full article here
