Two retail media reports can use the same metric name and still answer different questions. One may count sales of advertised products after a click. Another may include additional products, view-based credit or a different observation period. Putting the resulting figures beside each other does not automatically create a fair comparison.
Before reviewing performance, agree on what each report measures. The January 2024 IAB/MRC Retail Media Measurement Guidelines discuss attribution windows, reporting transparency and the scope of attributed outcomes. They call for disclosure of attribution windows before execution and alongside results. The practical reporting agreement below is Aeris editorial analysis, not a claim that every network implements identical measurement.
Start with the decision
Write down the decision the report is meant to support. A team deciding whether a particular product group needs more investment has a different question from a team reviewing delivery against a campaign brief. The report should make that purpose clear.
Select a primary outcome and explain why it matters. Keep supporting metrics available, but avoid changing the primary measure after seeing which result looks strongest. A review becomes more useful when the team can distinguish the original objective from an interesting secondary observation.
Identify the person who owns the definition and the person who can explain the underlying data. Those roles may sit in different organizations. Both should know where unresolved measurement questions are recorded.
Define the population
Describe which products, markets and placements belong in the report. Record whether the figures cover only advertised items or a wider set of products. If online and offline outcomes appear together, explain the scope of each component.
Be equally clear about the people or events represented in a rate. A conversion rate calculated from visits is not interchangeable with one calculated from ad clicks. Even when two rates have familiar names, their denominators may describe different journeys.
Keep exclusions visible. Unavailable data, filtered activity and unmatched outcomes can change the interpretation. A blank cell should not silently become zero, and an estimate should not look identical to a directly observed count.
Put time beside every outcome
Show the campaign period, the reporting cutoff and the relevant attribution window. These dates serve different purposes. A campaign can have stopped delivering while its reporting window remains open.
When a report is refreshed, preserve enough information to explain why a previously reported result changed. New observations, adjustments and corrected inputs should not be confused with a new campaign effect.
Agree on time zones before joining exports. A boundary mismatch can move activity between days and create apparent discrepancies that disappear once both parties use the same period. The solution is a shared definition, not a more elaborate explanation of the chart.
Explain the economics
State which costs are included in a performance ratio. Media spend, platform charges, creative production and other relevant expenses may appear in different systems. A headline return figure does not establish that the entire activity is profitable.
Treat cancellations, returns and other commercial adjustments consistently with the outcome being reported. If the current view is provisional, say so. Keep the original observation and the mature outcome distinguishable rather than rewriting history without a record.
For a budget decision, add the business's own economic view alongside the network report. This helps the team see where a marketing measure and a finance measure serve different purposes without declaring either one universally wrong.
Reconcile one example
Choose a small, inspectable example and trace how it enters the report. Check the product scope, event definition, time treatment and cost treatment. The objective is to understand the calculation before scaling the comparison across many campaigns.
If two systems disagree, classify the reason. It may be a different definition, an incomplete observation period, a missing record or an actual processing problem. Each explanation implies a different next action and a different owner.
Do not force agreement by changing definitions merely to match a preferred result. A documented difference is more useful than a consistent-looking table built from incompatible inputs.
Keep the agreement current
Attach the measurement definitions to the recurring review. When a provider changes a methodology or the business changes its objective, record the effective date and reconsider comparisons across that boundary.
A reporting agreement will not remove uncertainty. It makes uncertainty easier to locate. The result is a more practical conversation about which evidence supports the next investment decision and which question still needs investigation.
Source
IAB/MRC Retail Media Measurement Guidelines, January 2024; reviewed September 18, 2026. The reporting workflow is Aeris editorial analysis.
