If you are reading this article, there is a good chance you already know that your current system is not working. Perhaps it is slow. Perhaps it cannot support a new channel or product you need to sell. Perhaps the vendor has stopped developing it, or the internal team that built it has moved on. Whatever the reason, you have arrived at the conclusion that migration is necessary. And now you are confronting the reality that system migration in a media company is one of the most operationally challenging projects you will undertake.
This is not intended to discourage you. Migration is often the right decision, and the long-term benefits of moving to a modern, capable platform typically far outweigh the short-term disruption. But it is important to go in with clear expectations, a solid plan, and a realistic understanding of where the complexity lies. Having supported numerous media companies through this process, we have learned a great deal about what works, what does not, and what to watch out for.
The first and most important step is to be honest about your current state. Before you can plan a migration, you need to understand exactly what you are migrating from. This means auditing your existing data — client records, campaign history, rate cards, scheduling data, financial records — and assessing its quality. In many legacy systems, data quality is poor. Records are duplicated, incomplete, or inconsistent. Fields that were supposed to be used in a specific way have been repurposed by users over the years. Data that should match between the sales system and the finance system does not.
This is not a criticism. Data quality issues are a natural consequence of systems that have been in operation for years, used by many people, and never systematically cleaned. But they must be addressed before migration, because migrating dirty data into a new system simply transfers the problems rather than solving them. The data cleansing process can be time-consuming, but it is also an opportunity — a chance to establish clean, consistent data practices that will serve the business well going forward.
Scope definition is the next critical step. It is tempting to use a system migration as an opportunity to transform the entire operation — new workflows, new processes, new reporting, new everything. Resist this temptation, at least for the initial migration. The most successful migrations are those that focus first on replicating the existing operation in the new system, and then optimise and enhance in subsequent phases. Trying to change everything at once dramatically increases risk, extends the timeline, and exhausts the project team.
This does not mean you should blindly replicate every aspect of your current operation. Some processes exist purely because of limitations in the old system, and those should be identified and eliminated. But major workflow changes are best introduced after the new system is operational and the team is comfortable with the basics. A phased approach — migrate first, optimise second — consistently produces better outcomes than a big-bang transformation.
Data migration planning requires meticulous attention to detail. Every data entity — clients, contacts, products, rate cards, campaigns, orders, invoices — must be mapped from the old system to the new one. This mapping is rarely one-to-one. Fields may have different names, different formats, or different structures. Business logic that was implicit in the old system may need to be made explicit in the new one. Some data may not have a direct equivalent in the new system and must be either transformed or stored differently.
Testing is where many migrations fail. The temptation to compress the testing phase — because the project is running behind schedule, because the team is fatigued, or because the go-live date has been communicated to the business — should be resisted firmly. Testing should cover not just individual functions but end-to-end workflows: creating an order from scratch, amending it, scheduling it, tracking delivery, generating an invoice, and reconciling the result. Parallel running — operating both the old and new systems simultaneously for a period — is strongly recommended for any business-critical migration.
User adoption is the factor that ultimately determines whether a migration succeeds or fails. The best technology in the world will not deliver value if the people using it are not properly trained, do not understand why the change was made, or are not given adequate support during the transition period. Training should be role-specific — sales teams need different training than traffic managers, who need different training than finance teams. And it should continue beyond go-live, because many questions and challenges only emerge once the system is in actual daily use.
Communication throughout the migration process cannot be over-emphasised. The project team, the user community, the leadership team, and external stakeholders — clients, agencies, and partners — all need to understand what is happening, when, and how it will affect them. Surprises during a system migration are almost always negative. Proactive communication prevents them.
At adserve, we have developed a structured migration methodology based on our experience supporting media companies through this process. We know where the pitfalls are because we have seen them. We know what questions to ask during data audit because we have asked them before. And we know that the single most important factor in a successful migration is a genuine partnership between the media company and the technology provider — one where both parties are invested in the outcome and honest about the challenges.
Migration is hard. But staying on a system that no longer serves your business is harder. With the right approach, the right partner, and realistic expectations, the process can be managed effectively — and the result is a platform that supports your operation for years to come.
Was this useful?