AI agents can negotiate outcome-based media deals priced on CPA, CPCV or attention, but the price is the easy part. When payment depends on an outcome, the deal is only as sound as the measurement terms agreed before the first impression runs: what counts as the outcome, the attribution window, who counts it, and what happens when the two sides' counts differ. An agent that agrees a price without fixing those terms has agreed to a number whose meaning is still open.

TL;DR. Outcome-based pricing moves the billable unit from the impression, which both sides can count, to an event that often happens on systems only one side can see. That shifts risk to the seller and moves the likely dispute from "how many impressions ran" to "what counted". An agent can negotiate an outcome deal safely only if the outcome definition, attribution window, measurement source and dispute process are part of the agreed terms. The buyer's mandate should set which of those terms the agent may accept on its own and which go to a person.

What changes when the price depends on an outcome?

In a CPM deal, the billable unit is the impression, which both sides' ad servers count. In an outcome-based deal, the billable unit is an event that happens after the impression: a purchase, a completed view or a measured level of attention. That event is often recorded on a system the seller cannot see, such as the advertiser's checkout.

Two things follow. Risk moves to the seller, who now carries the effect of creative, landing pages and pricing it does not control, and often responds with caps or hybrids such as a lower CPM plus a payment per outcome. And the argument changes: under CPM, parties argue about counts; under outcome pricing, about definitions.

Which outcome-based models can agents negotiate, and what must each define?

Each outcome model has its own set of variables that must be fixed in the terms.

CPA (cost per action). Which action counts (purchase, lead, sign-up), how duplicate conversions are removed, which attribution model and window apply, and whose conversion data is the source.
CPCV (cost per completed view). What "complete" means (the full ad or a stated share of it), whether the player had to be in view, whether audio had to be on, and whose player or verification event is counted.
Attention-based pricing. Which measurement provider, which metric, which version of that metric and what threshold qualifies. Attention is measured differently by different providers, so a deal priced on "attention" without naming the provider and metric has no fixed meaning.

Viewability shows why shared definitions matter. The Media Rating Council's viewable impression guidelines, published in 2014, gave buyers and sellers a common definition both could reference in a deal. Where no single common definition exists, the deal itself has to supply one.

Why must measurement definitions be agreed before the deal runs?

Measurement definitions must be agreed first because two honest counts of the same campaign can produce different invoices. Consider a hypothetical £25,000 CPCV deal at £0.025 per completed view, intended to buy one million completions. The publisher's video player records 1,000,000 completions. The buyer's verification provider records 920,000, because it excludes completions where the player was not in view. The £2,000 gap is not fraud or error on either side. It is two definitions of "completed view" that nobody wrote down.

An agent negotiating that deal should treat the completion definition and the counting source as terms, and escalate any definition its mandate does not cover.

How should attribution windows be set in agent-negotiated CPA deals?

Attribution windows decide how long after an impression or click a conversion still counts, and they move money directly. A longer window credits more conversions to the seller, and overlapping windows across channels can credit the same sale to more than one seller.

For example, a hypothetical mandate might allow the buying agent to accept a seven-day post-click window and a one-day post-view window, require deduplication against the advertiser's other paid channels, and send any request for a longer window to a person. The specific numbers are a business decision. What matters is that the mandate sets them, rather than leaving them open for the agents to trade against price.

Who measures the outcome, and who holds the data?

Outcome deals need a named source of truth, and each option carries a trust question.

The buyer's data, such as the advertiser's conversion records. The seller has to trust a count it cannot inspect.
The seller's data, such as player completion events. The buyer has to trust the party being paid.
An independent measurement provider that both parties accept. The deal must name the provider, the metric version and a fallback if the provider's data is unavailable.
A jointly controlled environment, such as a data clean room, where both parties' data can be matched under agreed rules and outputs are reported in aggregate.

How should disputes be handled in outcome-based deals?

Disputes in outcome deals are best handled by rules agreed at the start. A workable structure sets a tolerance (for example, a hypothetical 5% difference between the named source and the other party's count), states that the named source applies within that tolerance, and sends anything outside it to a defined review between people, with a deadline. The terms should also say whether a shortfall is settled as a credit or a makegood.

Agents can compare counts and flag gaps, but agreeing a credit or makegood is a commercial commitment that people should approve.

Do AAMP and AdCP support outcome-based terms?

Protocols standardise how agents exchange terms, not which measurement terms are wise. AAMP, IAB Tech Lab's Agentic Advertising Management Protocols, supports the Deals API across programmatic guaranteed, preferred deals, private marketplaces, the open marketplace and linear GRPs, and its OpenProposal specification standardises how publishers describe products in RFP responses. AdCP, the separate protocol published by AgenticAdvertising.org, includes log_event for recording conversions, and its documentation states that settlement, disputes and makegoods remain account or platform integrations unless a specific contract covers them. In both cases, the outcome definitions still have to be written into the agreed terms.

What should a mandate allow an agent to agree in an outcome deal?

Which pricing models the agent may accept, and any cap on effective cost.
Which measurement providers and metric versions are approved.
Which attribution windows and deduplication rules apply.
The dispute tolerance and the named source of truth.
That any new definition, provider or window is escalated to a person.

Those terms only protect the buyer if the seller holds the same version. Alkimi, a neutral agentic advertising marketplace working within IAB Tech Lab's AAMP framework, records what buyer and seller agents agree on a DealSheet that is written at agreement, timestamped and held by both parties, with people keeping approval rights at the deal level.

Frequently asked questions

Can an AI agent negotiate a CPA deal?

Yes, within a mandate that fixes what counts as an action, the attribution window, the deduplication rule and whose conversion data is the source.

What is CPCV?

Cost per completed view: a video pricing model in which the buyer pays only when an ad plays to completion. The deal must define what completion means and whose count applies.

Is attention a standard pricing metric?

Attention is measured differently by different providers. A deal priced on attention should name the provider, the metric, its version and the qualifying threshold.

Who should measure outcomes in an agent-negotiated deal?

A source both parties accept, named in the agreed terms, with a fallback if that source fails. It can be the buyer, the seller, an independent provider or a jointly controlled environment such as a clean room.

Can AI Agents Negotiate Outcome-Based Media Deals Such as CPA, CPCV or Attention?