---
id: "claim-rmn-as-a-tax"
type: "claim"
source_timestamps: ["¶3", "§ The Buyer-Seller Role Inversion Requires a New Playbook"]
tags: ["supplier-sentiment", "monetization"]
related: ["concept-coercive-monetization"]
confidence: "high"
testable: true
speakers: ["Remko Van Hoek", "Stephanie Thomas", "Rodney Thomas"]
source_url: "https://hbr.org/2025/09/the-importance-of-trust-and-transparency-in-retail-media-networks"
source_title: "The Importance of Trust and Transparency in Retail Media Networks"
sources: ["attention"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-attention"
originDay: 4
articleStem: "hbr-foci-71-retail-media-networks-trust"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/09/the-importance-of-trust-and-transparency-in-retail-media-networks"
sourceTitle: "The Importance of Trust and Transparency in Retail Media Networks"
---
# Suppliers increasingly view RMNs as a mandatory tax

**Claim (confidence: high, testable).** Supplier frustration is growing to the point where many describe RMNs as a **fee they are forced to pay** (a 'cost of doing business') rather than a strategic investment they choose to make. This sentiment arises when retailers impose fixed media-spending requirements tied to supplier revenue without providing meaningful transparency into outcomes — the mechanism of [[concept-coercive-monetization]].

The claim is anchored by the article's own line, [[quote-fee-not-strategy]] ('Some now describe RMNs as a fee they are forced to pay, not a strategy they choose to invest in').

**Enrichment context.** Strongly supported by broader critiques that RMNs must avoid opaque or coercive practices to preserve trust; the 'tax' framing recurs across industry commentary on brands' RMN sentiment.