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

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.

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