Episode Details

Back to Episodes
Why iROAS Metrics Are So Inconsistent (And Why Debate Is Good For The Industry)

Why iROAS Metrics Are So Inconsistent (And Why Debate Is Good For The Industry)

Published 3 weeks, 3 days ago
Description

Today I unpack the intense industry reaction to a piece of Albertsons Media Collective, Ovative Group, and Kellogg School of Management research that challenged how we measure iROAS in retail media. When a single campaign’s return can swing wildly — up to 6.5x — based purely on methodology, it raises some uncomfortable but necessary questions. I walk through the biggest critiques that surfaced from practitioners and academics, and why this debate matters more than ever for brands trying to make sense of their performance data.

I also share how the authors of the study responded to the pushback, and what they didn’t address. More importantly, we get into what this all means for real-world advertisers, especially mid-market brands navigating opaque reporting standards. If you’ve ever questioned whether your campaign results are telling the full story, this episode will give you a fresh lens to evaluate retail media measurement.


This episode is sponsored by Mirakl Ads


Timeline

[00:00] – Why controversial research is better than silence, and what sparked this debate
[00:31] – The headline finding: iROAS can vary dramatically depending on measurement methodology
[01:24] – Key critique: Are these methodologies even comparable in the first place?
[02:07] – The BSTS debate: causal method or misapplied forecasting tool?
[03:08] – A practical question: What are brands actually using iROAS for?
[04:30] – The authors respond: what the study was, and wasn’t, designed to prove
[05:39] – What mid-market brands should do next: pushing for transparency and better disclosure


Links & Resources

Listen Now

Love PodBriefly?

If you like Podbriefly.com, please consider donating to support the ongoing development.

Support Us