In AdTech, partner growth is often presented as a numbers game.
More publishers, more advertisers, more inventory sources, and more integrations are usually seen as signs of a stronger business. But the number of partners alone says very little about the actual resilience of a partner network.
A company can work with dozens of partners and still depend on one or two of them for most of its revenue. At the same time, a business built around several large strategic relationships may generate strong volumes but have limited flexibility when market conditions change.
This creates an important strategic question: is it better to build around a few large partners or work with many smaller ones?
There is no universal answer. The right model depends on how revenue, data, inventory, technology, and decision-making are distributed across the network.
The value of large partners
Large partners can accelerate growth. They usually bring scale, predictable volumes, established processes, and access to inventory or demand that would take much longer to build independently. A single strong integration may generate more business than dozens of smaller relationships.
Large partnerships can also reduce operational complexity. Instead of maintaining many separate integrations, commercial discussions, payment processes, and technical configurations, a company can concentrate resources around a smaller number of strategic accounts.
This model works particularly well when both sides share clear goals and the relationship extends beyond transactional buying and selling.
The risk appears when scale becomes dependency. If one partner represents a significant share of revenue, inventory, demand, or data access, changes on their side can immediately affect the entire business. A new pricing model, policy update, technical issue, strategy shift, or contract decision may create an impact that is difficult to replace quickly.
The strongest partner may therefore also become the largest concentration of risk.
Why smaller partners still matter
Smaller partners rarely deliver the same immediate scale. However, they can provide something equally important: flexibility.
A broader network can offer access to different regions, audiences, formats, and business models. It allows companies to test new approaches without changing the structure of the entire operation.
Smaller partners can also make the network more adaptable. When demand changes in one market or a specific source of inventory underperforms, other relationships can help absorb part of the impact.
However, diversification is not automatically efficient. Each additional partner creates technical, operational, financial, and compliance work. If many relationships produce limited value, the company may spend more resources managing the network than it gains from it.
The goal is therefore not to collect as many partners as possible. It is to build a portfolio in which every relationship has a clear strategic role.
Amazon’s expansion illustrates both sides of the equation
Amazon’s latest expansion provides a useful example of how scale, partnership, data and measurement are becoming connected.
Its expanded relationship with iHeartMedia gives advertisers broader access to inventory across Prime Video, Twitch, Amazon Music, Fire TV, Alexa, audio, podcasts, and other digital environments. At the same time, Amazon’s Outcome Optimizer uses shopping, browsing, and streaming signals to optimize programmatic guaranteed campaigns and connect media delivery more closely with business outcomes.
This is not simply another inventory partnership. Amazon is placing itself closer to the centre of how media is distributed, how audiences are reached, and how campaign performance is evaluated. Its data increasingly acts as a common layer across channels that were previously planned and measured separately.
For advertisers, this may simplify omnichannel planning and make it easier to connect media exposure with commercial results. For the wider ecosystem, however, it also raises a familiar strategic question: how much of the buying, data, optimization, and measurement process should depend on one platform?
As our CEO Emin Alpan explains:
Amazon’s latest news made me think. Many people will say this is another retail media update. I think it is more about measurement.
Amazon is expanding into more channels, but what is really interesting is how they connect everything together. TV, audio, and digital are becoming part of one system where advertisers can better understand what actually works. In my opinion, this is where advertising is going.
For a long time, we focused on impressions, clicks, and CPMs. These metrics are still important, but advertisers want to know one thing: did this campaign bring results? This news is not directly related to our business, but I think it shows where the market is moving. The companies that can connect different channels and prove performance will have a big advantage.
For me, this is less about Amazon selling more media and more about helping advertisers make better decisions with better data. That is the part I would watch most.
Amazon’s model shows why the partner question is becoming more complex. A major partner may provide not only scale, but also the infrastructure that connects inventory, audiences, data, and measurement. That can create significant efficiency. But it can also increase dependence on the same ecosystem for media access, decision-making, and proof of performance.
Diversification should cover more than revenue
Companies often measure partner concentration only by revenue. Revenue is important, but it is not the only dependency that matters.
A business may have a diversified client base while relying on one partner for most of its inventory. It may use several supply sources but depend on one measurement provider. It may work across many channels while using a single identity, data, or optimization layer.
A more complete diversification strategy should examine several areas:
Revenue concentration. How much revenue would disappear if one major relationship ended?
Supply and demand concentration. Is most activity coming through the same inventory or buying source?
Technology concentration. Are important decisions dependent on one platform, integration, or infrastructure provider?
Data and measurement concentration. Can performance still be understood if access to one data source changes?
Geographic and format concentration. Is the business exposed to changes within one region, channel, or media format?
This does not mean every dependency must be eliminated. Some concentration is a natural result of strong partnerships. The important question is whether the dependency is understood, monitored and supported by realistic alternatives.
A portfolio approach works better than a binary choice
The decision does not have to be between a few large partners and many smaller ones. A more resilient model usually combines both.
Large strategic partners can provide scale, predictable revenue, strong technology, and access to established ecosystems. Smaller or specialized partners can provide flexibility, market coverage, innovation, and alternatives when conditions change. Each group serves a different purpose.
A healthy network may include:
several core partners responsible for consistent volume;
growth partners with the potential to become more strategic;
specialized partners covering specific regions, formats, or capabilities;
experimental relationships used to test new opportunities.
The balance will differ from company to company. What matters is that it is intentional.
The real question is not how many partners you have
Partner strategy should not be evaluated through the size of the partner list.
The more useful questions are:
How much value does each relationship create?
What role does it play in the wider ecosystem?
What would happen if it disappeared?
How easily could the business adapt?
Large partnerships can create powerful growth opportunities. Diverse networks can create flexibility and resilience. Neither model works well without transparency around dependency, contribution and risk.
The strongest AdTech companies will not necessarily be those with the largest number of partners.
They will be the ones that know which relationships create scale, which create flexibility, and how all of them work together to produce measurable results.
