# 43% of Retail Media Buyers Underuse In-Store Placements Despite Proven Returns, IAB Study Finds

*A documented adoption gap reveals opportunity for physical-product brands already shipping to retail.*

By **Jenny Huang Goodman MPA MSc MHSA, Principal** — The Stash Edge, Hako Shikin LLC.
Published 2026-10-20.

Canonical: https://www.pops4.com/stash/articles/in-store-retail-media-networks-2026-10-20t18-6
Subject: In-store retail media networks
Tags: retail media, in-store advertising, point of sale, shelf marketing, retail placements, physical retail

---

Nearly half of retail media buyers admit they underutilize in-store advertising placements, according to an IAB study reported by PPC Land and Sixteen:Nine. The **43%** figure points to a structural gap: the channel works, but marketers remain cautious or confused about deployment.

The mechanics are straightforward. In-store retail media includes endcap displays, shelf talkers, video screens near point-of-sale, and audio announcements—placements inside the four walls where purchase intent is highest. Retailers have built networks to sell this inventory, but buyers trained on digital attribution struggle to measure it with the same confidence they bring to search or social.

The gap exists because in-store media lacks the click-through clarity of a Facebook ad. A shopper sees a freezer door wrap for a new ice cream flavor, picks up the pint, and buys it. No pixel fires. The brand knows the campaign ran and sales lifted, but the path is inferential. According to the IAB research, this ambiguity keeps buyers from filling available inventory even when prior tests showed positive return. The result: underutilized placements at a moment when shelf competition has never been tighter.

For a physical-product brand already on retail shelves, this hesitation creates an opening. The playbook is simple: start with one high-traffic retailer, negotiate a test placement tied to a specific SKU, and measure at the register. A frozen-food brand might buy four weeks of cooler clings in **20** stores, track velocity against matched control stores, and calculate lift. The cost runs **$2,000 to $8,000** depending on format and chain, but the data is clean because you control the variable.

The steal hinges on treating in-store media as a direct-response test, not a brand exercise. Pick a single format—shelf talker, cart ad, or endcap topper. Write copy that moves the shopper's hand six inches: "New flavor, middle shelf, try it tonight." Run it in a tight window so you can read same-week register data. If velocity jumps **15%** or more in test stores, you have proof to expand. If it doesn't, the format or message was wrong, and you adjust before spending deeper.

The broader pattern is that retail media has matured on the digital side—search, display, sponsored product—but the physical layer remains underbought relative to performance. Brands that treat the store itself as a buyable media surface, measure it like any other channel, and iterate on creative will capture margin other advertisers leave on the table. The **43%** underutilization rate is not a warning. It is an availability signal.

## The takeaway

In-store retail media placements are underbought by nearly half of buyers; test one format with clean velocity tracking to claim the gap.

---

## Publisher

**Hako Shikin LLC** — Virginia Beach, Virginia. Founded 1997. ASI 217876 · DUNS 18-204-6339.
Principal and author: **Jenny Huang Goodman MPA MSc MHSA**.

- Author: https://www.huanggoodman.com/about
- LLM context: https://www.pops4.com/stash/llms.txt
- MCP endpoint, for AI agents: https://mcp.pops4.com/mcp
- Client dashboard: https://dashboard.pops4.com/
- Catalogue: 70,000+ products, 200+ brands