Will CCI’s crackdown reshape the ad industry? Media veteran Raj Nayak explains

MUMBAI: The Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) recent raids on top ad agencies and industry bodies have pulled the curtain back on long-whispered allegations of monopolistic practices in media buying. As advertisers seek transparency and smaller agencies struggle for a level playing field, the industry finds itself at a crossroads. In a conversation with Mint, veteran media executive and founder of media consulting firm House of Cheer Raj Nayak dissects the systemic issues, the illusion of competition, and whether this moment will lead to lasting reform—or just another missed opportunity. Edited excerpts:

Do you believe the CCI’s intervention could change how media inventory is priced and negotiated in India?


That depends entirely on how seriously the CCI enforces regulations. Today, just three to four media buying groups control nearly 80% of the business, which is unhealthy. Smaller and medium-sized agencies are at a clear disadvantage. If this leads to stringent enforcement, it could potentially reshape how pricing and negotiations work—hopefully for the better.

How does this concentration of power affect rate negotiations and advertiser interests?


Monopolies allow big agencies to leverage volume to secure better rates, locking others out. In principle, volume discounts based on a specific client’s spend are fair. But agency-wide rates distort the market. Ironically, larger clients often don’t benefit—they may even subsidise smaller spenders. That’s fundamentally unfair.

Was there ever a risk of newer or smaller players being squeezed out of deals?


Yes, definitely. Dominant agencies can pressure media owners—especially those not in the top two of their genre—to offer deals smaller agencies can’t match. This creates an uneven playing field and limits fair competition.

Also Read: After the raids: The uneasy truths behind Indian advertising’s perfect façade

In your experience, where does the line blur between strategic alignment and cartel-like behaviour?


There’s no formal cartel, but the structure often mimics one. Media groups may operate multiple agency brands, but buying happens via a single backend arm. On paper, these are separate entities, but in practice, it’s coordinated. That gives the impression of competition while consolidating control.

Do you think this coordination was seasonal or tied to big-ticket events like the IPL?


Not really. The issue was always there—it’s just that IPL, given its scale, may have made it more visible. Surprisingly, broadcasters and publishers, who’ve been the most impacted, didn’t raise concerns earlier. However, high-stake moments like the IPL expose the disparities more clearly.

Could this be the moment for more transparent, programmatic media buying in India?


Unlikely. If anything, the backlash could push advertisers towards more hands-on, traditional buying where accountability is clearer. This isn’t about technology—it’s about trust. Until we fix issues of control and ethics, programmatic won’t gain ground in TV or print.

What are the main challenges with programmatic media buying today?


The biggest issue is transparency. Advertisers often have no idea where their ads are running, which risks brand safety. A mismatch between ad placement and brand values can hurt reputations. Without fixing this, the efficiency and scale of programmatic aren’t enough.

What reforms do you believe are necessary—legal, structural, or cultural?


First, enforce transparency laws mandating full disclosure of media transactions. Second, strengthen anti-monopoly regulations. This will ensure fair pricing, diverse viewpoints, and give small and mid-sized agencies a fighting chance.

Do you think advertisers will now demand more transparency—or even independent audits?


I believe they will—and they should. Why should a client spending 10x get the same rate as someone spending 2x? Rates must reflect individual client spends, not agency volume. Right now, larger clients often don't get their due, and that needs to change.

How has the relationship between media agencies and broadcasters evolved—and has it grown too cosy?


It’s structural. The media buying business is consolidated, while broadcasters are fragmented and under pressure. This forces them to align with dominant buyers. Only top-tier broadcasters—GECs or sports networks—have real leverage. Tentpole properties like IPL, Bigg Boss, or Shark Tank flip the power dynamic briefly, but otherwise, the buyers call the shots.

What kind of short- and long-term disruption could follow if these allegations lead to action?


If taken to its logical end, it could mean the breakup of media buying monopolies. In the short term, there will be churn. But in the long term, we could see a more balanced ecosystem—fairer pricing, better innovation, and a playing field based on merit.

Will this investigation impact ad rates for this year’s IPL?


Not really. Most IPL deals for this season are already in place. The larger factor right now is the overall market sentiment—it’s a bit slow. However, this investigation could influence how future events are negotiated.