Retail media networks are on pace to pull in more than $170 billion in ad spend, and every one of those networks now wants a piece of creator budgets. Meanwhile, marketing teams have spent a decade building creator relationships, content workflows, and brand safety protocols. So when a retail media team shows up wanting to fold creators into its shoppable ad stack, who actually owns the program? This isn’t a hypothetical. It’s a live turf war happening inside CPG, beauty, and big-box retail organizations right now, and the answer determines whether creator content drives real commerce or just gets lost between two budgets.
The Turf War Nobody Planned For
Five years ago, this question didn’t exist. Retail media was a display and search ad business bolted onto an ecommerce platform. Creator marketing lived comfortably inside brand or social teams, reporting through the CMO. Then retail media networks like Walmart Connect, Kroger Precision Marketing, and Amazon’s creator tools started layering influencer content directly into shoppable placements, and suddenly two departments were chasing the same creators for overlapping objectives.
The friction is structural, not personal. Retail media teams are measured on retail media revenue and in-platform conversion. Marketing teams are measured on brand equity, share of voice, and increasingly, full-funnel attribution. Put a single creator contract in the middle of that and you get duplicate outreach, conflicting briefs, and creators fielding two sets of usage rights requests from the same parent company.
When retail media and marketing both claim creator budget without a shared operating model, brands end up paying twice for the same audience and getting half the strategic value.
What Retail Media Brings to the Table
Retail media’s pitch is straightforward: proximity to purchase. A creator video embedded in a retail media placement sits inches from the “add to cart” button. That’s a real advantage marketing-led programs often lack, since a lot of top-funnel creator content still relies on link-in-bio or swipe-up friction to close the loop.
Retail media teams also bring first-party purchase data that most marketing organizations can only dream about. They know exactly which SKUs moved after a creator post ran, down to the store cluster. That kind of closed-loop measurement is gold for justifying spend to finance, and it dovetails with the broader push toward embedding creator spend into marketing mix models that CFOs are now demanding across the board.
But retail media’s incentives are narrow by design. A retail media team optimizing for same-week conversion has little reason to invest in the creator relationship past the campaign window. Long-term brand building, community trust, and creator equity partnerships aren’t in their KPI stack, and honestly, why would they be? They’re not being paid to think that way.
What Marketing Brings That Retail Media Can’t Replicate
Marketing teams own the relationship infrastructure: creator sourcing, contract negotiation, disclosure compliance, and the messy human work of managing talent at scale. They also own brand voice consistency across channels, which matters more than it sounds. A creator who’s been briefed inconsistently by two internal teams starts producing content that feels disjointed, and audiences notice.
Marketing organizations have also been the ones building out more sophisticated creator operating models, things like creator tier systems that turn one-off gigs into equity partnerships, or shared creator pools designed to avoid exclusivity disputes. That institutional knowledge doesn’t transfer cleanly if a retail media team suddenly starts signing its own separate roster.
The gap in marketing’s case is measurement rigor tied to hard sales data. A lot of marketing-led creator programs still lean on engagement rate and reach as headline metrics, which finance has grown skeptical of. If marketing wants to hold the line on ownership, it needs to show up with the same commerce-linked proof points retail media already has.
Three Ownership Models, and Where Each One Breaks
Most organizations land in one of three structures. None is perfect, but understanding the failure mode of each helps you pick the least bad option for your situation.
- Marketing-led, retail media as a distribution channel. Marketing owns creator selection, contracts, and content strategy; retail media buys placement for approved content. This preserves brand consistency but often moves too slowly for retail media’s campaign cadence, and retail media teams get frustrated waiting on creative sign-off.
- Retail media-led, marketing as a brand safety gate. Retail media drives sourcing and briefs based on SKU-level sales goals, with marketing reviewing for tone and compliance. Fast and commerce-focused, but creator relationships become transactional, and long-term partnerships erode because nobody’s investing in the creator beyond the current promo.
- Shared governance with a joint steering function. Both teams sit on a council that approves budget allocation, creator selection, and measurement standards, similar in spirit to the cross-functional steering committees now standard for AI ROI dashboards. This model works best at scale but requires real executive sponsorship, because without a tiebreaker, joint governance just relocates the turf war into a recurring meeting.
There’s no universally correct answer here. A DTC brand with a thin retail footprint should default to marketing-led. A CPG brand doing the bulk of its volume through Walmart or Target should lean retail media-led for always-on shoppable content, while keeping brand campaigns under marketing. Most enterprise brands eventually need the third model, whether they like it or not.
Budget Follows Ownership, Not the Other Way Around
Here’s the uncomfortable part. Whoever controls the budget effectively controls the program, regardless of what the org chart says. If retail media has its own creator line item separate from marketing’s, marketing’s “ownership” is largely symbolic. This is why the ownership conversation has to happen alongside the budget conversation, not after it.
Brands that have gotten this right typically build a shared framework similar to what’s described in percent-of-ad-spend creator deal guardrails, where a fixed portion of both retail media and marketing budgets flows into a shared creator fund, with usage rights and measurement standards defined upfront. That prevents the scenario where a creator signs two overlapping contracts with different legal teams inside the same company, which happens more often than most brand leaders want to admit.
It also forces a conversation about building a creator P&L that finance actually trusts, since retail media’s conversion-driven ROI math and marketing’s brand equity math need to reconcile in a single ledger, not two competing spreadsheets that both claim credit for the same campaign.
Measurement Is Where the Fight Actually Gets Resolved
Ownership debates usually aren’t really about org charts. They’re about whose metrics win. Retail media teams point to attributable sales lift. Marketing teams point to brand lift, share of voice, and increasingly, longer-horizon value metrics.
The fix isn’t picking a winner, it’s building a flexible KPI framework that balances brand equity and velocity metrics so both functions can see their priorities represented in the same dashboard. Pair that with the kind of long-term value KPIs that fix the short-termism baked into most retail media reporting, and you’ve got a measurement layer that doesn’t force an either/or choice.
A creator program measured only on last-click retail conversion will always look like it’s underperforming on brand impact, and a program measured only on brand lift will always look expensive to a retail media buyer. You need both lenses in the same report.
Industry data backs up why this matters. eMarketer’s retail media forecasts consistently show ad dollars shifting toward channels with closed-loop measurement, which puts pressure on marketing-led creator programs to prove commerce impact or risk losing budget share entirely. At the same time, brand tracking research from firms like Statista continues to show that trust and consideration metrics, the things marketing teams have historically owned, still predict long-term customer value better than a single week of sales lift.
Compliance Doesn’t Care Who Owns the Program
One thing that shouldn’t be up for debate: disclosure compliance and platform policy adherence need a single owner regardless of which team runs day-to-day creator relationships. The FTC’s endorsement guidelines apply the same way whether a creator post lives in a retail media placement or a marketing-owned social feed. If retail media and marketing are running parallel creator programs with separate legal review, you’re one missed disclosure away from a regulatory headache that lands on both departments’ desks.
This is another argument for shared governance, similar in structure to the governance frameworks now expected before launching employee influencer programs. Compliance, contracts, and disclosure standards should sit in one place, even if creative briefing and budget allocation stay split between teams.
A Practical Path Forward
If your organization is still fighting this out, start smaller than a full reorg. Run a pilot where retail media and marketing co-fund a single creator cohort for one quarter, with shared measurement built in from day one, borrowing structure from the quarter-by-quarter budget models already used for evergreen creator spend. Track both commerce and brand metrics on the same dashboard. Let the results, not the org chart, make the case for which structure scales.
Most brands that have gone through this find the shared governance model isn’t a compromise, it’s actually the more efficient path once both teams stop treating creator budget as a zero-sum resource.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQs
Should retail media or marketing own creator budgets?
Neither should own it exclusively in most enterprise organizations. Marketing-led ownership works best for brand-building creator campaigns, retail media-led ownership works best for always-on shoppable content, and larger brands typically need a shared governance model with joint budget and measurement standards.
What’s the biggest risk of splitting creator programs between teams?
Duplicate outreach and conflicting contracts with the same creator, plus inconsistent brand messaging when two teams brief the same talent separately without shared standards.
How do retail media and marketing measure creator success differently?
Retail media typically prioritizes attributable sales lift and SKU-level conversion, while marketing prioritizes brand equity, reach, and longer-horizon customer value. A flexible KPI framework that reports both is the most sustainable fix.
Who should own creator compliance and disclosure standards?
Compliance should sit with a single centralized function regardless of which team runs day-to-day creator relationships, since FTC and platform disclosure rules apply the same way across retail media and marketing channels.
What’s a low-risk way to test a shared ownership model?
Run a quarter-long pilot where both teams co-fund one creator cohort with shared measurement built in from the start, then use the results to decide how much further to formalize joint governance.
Top Influencer Marketing Agencies
The leading agencies shaping influencer marketing in 2026
Agencies ranked by campaign performance, client diversity, platform expertise, proven ROI, industry recognition, and client satisfaction. Assessed through verified case studies, reviews, and industry consultations.
Moburst
-
2
The Shelf
Boutique Beauty & Lifestyle Influencer AgencyA data-driven boutique agency specializing exclusively in beauty, wellness, and lifestyle influencer campaigns on Instagram and TikTok. Best for brands already focused on the beauty/personal care space that need curated, aesthetic-driven content.Clients: Pepsi, The Honest Company, Hims, Elf Cosmetics, Pure LeafVisit The Shelf → -
3
Audiencly
Niche Gaming & Esports Influencer AgencyA specialized agency focused exclusively on gaming and esports creators on YouTube, Twitch, and TikTok. Ideal if your campaign is 100% gaming-focused — from game launches to hardware and esports events.Clients: Epic Games, NordVPN, Ubisoft, Wargaming, Tencent GamesVisit Audiencly → -
4
Viral Nation
Global Influencer Marketing & Talent AgencyA dual talent management and marketing agency with proprietary brand safety tools and a global creator network spanning nano-influencers to celebrities across all major platforms.Clients: Meta, Activision Blizzard, Energizer, Aston Martin, WalmartVisit Viral Nation → -
5
The Influencer Marketing Factory
TikTok, Instagram & YouTube CampaignsA full-service agency with strong TikTok expertise, offering end-to-end campaign management from influencer discovery through performance reporting with a focus on platform-native content.Clients: Google, Snapchat, Universal Music, Bumble, YelpVisit TIMF → -
6
NeoReach
Enterprise Analytics & Influencer CampaignsAn enterprise-focused agency combining managed campaigns with a powerful self-service data platform for influencer search, audience analytics, and attribution modeling.Clients: Amazon, Airbnb, Netflix, Honda, The New York TimesVisit NeoReach → -
7
Ubiquitous
Creator-First Marketing PlatformA tech-driven platform combining self-service tools with managed campaign options, emphasizing speed and scalability for brands managing multiple influencer relationships.Clients: Lyft, Disney, Target, American Eagle, NetflixVisit Ubiquitous → -
8
Obviously
Scalable Enterprise Influencer CampaignsA tech-enabled agency built for high-volume campaigns, coordinating hundreds of creators simultaneously with end-to-end logistics, content rights management, and product seeding.Clients: Google, Ulta Beauty, Converse, AmazonVisit Obviously →