forbes.com
Retail Media Investment Soars, But Measurement Challenges Persist
US retail media ad spending will surpass \$10 billion in 2025; however, brands struggle to measure the impact due to fragmented data, lack of standards, and complex cross-channel shopping behavior, resulting in a gap between investment and accountability.
- How do pre-existing brand commitments and cross-channel shopping behavior complicate the measurement of retail media's effectiveness?
- The difficulty in measuring retail media's impact stems from a lack of measurement standards (cited by 62% of buyers), difficulties integrating it with other channels (25% of marketers), and concerns about ROI (32%). Brands also struggle to compare results across retailers and understand whether ads create net-new sales, hindering accurate assessment of campaign effectiveness.
- What is the primary challenge facing brands investing heavily in US retail media in 2025, and what are the immediate consequences of this challenge?
- In 2025, over \$10 billion in additional ad spending will go to US retail media. However, many brands struggle to prove this investment drives sales, highlighting a critical gap between spending and accountability. Many brands use an average of six retail media networks, and this is expected to increase to eleven by 2026, making measurement more complex.
- What systemic changes within the retail media landscape are needed to address the current measurement gap and ensure more accurate assessment of return on investment?
- The complexity is amplified by brands' pre-committed spending with retailers through trade negotiations, preventing budget shifts based on performance. Cross-channel shopping behavior further complicates measurement, as single-channel analysis underestimates the true impact of advertising. Despite these challenges, 56% of organizations report improved incrementality measurement, indicating progress but highlighting the need for better industry standards and improved network insights.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the narrative around the challenges and complexities of retail media measurement, emphasizing the difficulties brands face. While acknowledging some progress, the negative aspects are given more prominence, potentially influencing the reader's overall perception of retail media's value.
Language Bias
The article uses fairly neutral language, but phrases like "growing challenge," "critical gap," and "measurement maze" subtly convey a negative tone. While not overtly biased, these phrases could contribute to a more pessimistic interpretation. More neutral alternatives could be: "increasing complexity," "performance gap," and "measurement complexities.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the challenges of measuring retail media's effectiveness, potentially omitting success stories or positive examples of brands effectively measuring ROI. It also doesn't delve into specific examples of retail media networks' measurement solutions or their limitations in detail, hindering a complete understanding of the situation. The article mentions the existence of third-party measurement providers but doesn't name any, limiting the reader's ability to seek further information.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy between growing investment in retail media and the difficulty of measuring its effectiveness. While the challenges are significant, it doesn't fully explore alternative approaches or solutions beyond improved internal capabilities and industry standardization.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the increasing investment in retail media, emphasizing the need for better measurement and accountability to ensure responsible and efficient resource allocation in advertising. Improved measurement will lead to better targeting and reduced wasted ad spend, promoting responsible consumption and production.