Retail media's biggest risk is becoming a tax on shelf access

By Ori Gold, Co-founder and CEO, Bench Media

Retail media's biggest risk is not effectiveness, but its drift into a tax on shelf access.

That happens when a brand feels it can't decline a media package without affecting distribution, pricing, promotions or its wider relationship with the retailer. At that point, the decision is no longer purely about which channel will deliver the strongest return.

Australia's retail media market is forecast to reach $2.3 billion in 2026, up 19.5%. Before celebrating that growth, marketers should ask a more difficult question. How much of that investment would survive if retail media had to compete on equal terms with every other channel?

A media investment should win budget because it changes consumer behaviour more effectively than the alternatives. A trade commitment may win because saying no carries commercial consequences. Retail media increasingly sits between the two, and marketers need to be honest about which one they are buying.

A simple test helps clarify the issue. Would you still buy this exact package at this exact price if the seller did not also control access to shelf space?

That matters because the same business can control the data, inventory, price, reporting and access to shelf space.

None of this makes retailers bad actors. Retail media has clear advantages, including proximity to purchase, rich first-party data and the ability to connect exposure with transaction outcomes. But closed-loop reporting is useful, not independent proof. Proximity is not connection.

A loyalty member who sees an ad and buys may have purchased anyway. They may already be loyal to the brand, have been influenced by TV or social, or responded to an existing promotion. The closed loop will still record the sale without proving the ad created it.

The latest IAB Australia study highlights this gap. Of 92 experienced retail and commerce media decision-makers surveyed, 73% cited inconsistent metrics and definitions as a major measurement challenge, while 83% wanted better incremental sales measurement.

The market is asking for evidence that can stand outside the seller's reporting environment. Without holdouts, control groups or comparable whole-of-market frameworks, platform-reported ROAS is an attribution result, not proof of incremental impact.

This matters because retail media is no longer experimental. IAB Australia reports that nearly half of investment is now reallocated from other channels. It is competing directly with mainstream marketing budgets and should meet the same accountability standards.

Commercial reality still matters. Stock availability, distribution, promotions and launch timing affect whether media can work. But these constraints should influence when and how activity runs, not automatically determine which inventory owner receives the budget.

Commercial teams focus on distribution and retailer relationships. Media teams should focus on the marginal return from the next dollar. Problems arise when trade and media are bundled but presented as measurable media performance.

A strong package should earn investment via audience value, fair pricing and credible incremental impact. Someone must have the authority and data to test it before the trading relationship answers by default.

If a package would not be purchased without the broader retail relationship, it may represent trading value rather than media value. That can still be commercially rational, but it should be labelled honestly rather than later presented as proof of media effectiveness.

Three tests should be applied before the money moves.

Test 1: Could we say no?

If declining the package would create consequences elsewhere in the commercial relationship, that should be explicit. A trade commitment should not be disguised as a pure media decision.

Test 2: Can it be compared?

Outcome definitions, measurement windows and cost treatment should be consistent enough for retail media to be compared with other channels competing for the same budget, even when the mechanics differ.

Test 3: Who validates incrementality?

Incremental impact should be tested through holdouts, test-and-control design or other defensible methods. Oversight should come from a party that does not sell the inventory, whether an internal analytics team, an agency or an independent research partner. Independence is a governance requirement, not a job title.

The strongest networks should welcome these tests. Networks that genuinely drive incremental sales benefit from rigorous measurement because credible proof attracts more durable investment. Common definitions, certification and independent validation will help distinguish the strongest from the rest.

Retail media is now too large and important to sit outside normal investment governance. The closer media gets to the point of sale, the more scrutiny it should attract, not less.

Marketers should welcome the closed loop but resist the closed decision. If a package cannot survive independent measurement and fair competition for budget, it is not a media strategy. It is a shelf tax with a dashboard.