---
id: "question-untangling-negotiations"
type: "open-question"
source_timestamps: ["§ RMNs Cannot Succeed Without Trust"]
tags: ["negotiation", "organizational-structure"]
related: ["concept-coercive-monetization"]
resolutionPath: "Case studies on leading retailers detailing their internal compliance and organizational structures that separate media sales from merchandising procurement."
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"
---
# How do retailers practically untangle RMN negotiations from merchandising negotiations?

**Open question.** The authors note that typical retailers use RMN spending levels as leverage in unrelated commercial negotiations ([[concept-coercive-monetization]]). While the prescribed solution is to treat suppliers as media clients (see [[action-treat-suppliers-as-clients]]), the text does not detail the *internal organizational firewalls* required to prevent merchandising buyers from demanding RMN spend during inventory negotiations.

**Resolution path.** Case studies on leading retailers detailing the internal compliance and organizational structures that separate media sales from merchandising procurement. Enrichment framing: adjacent literature would examine this through platform-power and preferred-supplier dynamics, and the risk that retail media becomes an extension of slotting-power economics rather than a standalone media product.