In-store impressions now start at the door

On 17 September 2026, IAB Europe put Version 2 of its In-Store Retail Media Definitions and Measurement Standards out for public comment, with feedback due by 23 October. The headline change is one sentence in the draft: ad play “is not the right starting point for media measurement; footfall is”. The in-store impression is redefined as visual contact with the ad, it becomes the trading currency, and a simplified six-metric Opportunity To See calculation replaces the eight-variable example of Version 1.

This matters beyond supermarkets. Once the impression is anchored on people who walked in, rather than on how often a loop ran, the network with the cleanest count of who walked in has the strongest measurement story. A salon or clinic network has that count already, one appointment at a time.

What's changing

V2 opened for comment on 17 Sep 2026; comments close 23 Oct 2026. It is a draft for industry review, not a final standard (IAB Europe V2 draft — primary).
Footfall replaces ad play as the starting point. Ad play and gross impressions stay as disclosed supporting metrics, “but neither is the trading currency on its own” (IAB Europe V2 draft — primary).
Six-metric OTS: average daily store footfall × stores × days × placements × aisle penetration × share of voice. The draft’s worked example gives 36,000,000 OTS (IAB Europe V2 draft — primary).
Five store zones kept; Zone 1 (exterior) follows OOH conventions, Zones 2–5 are “assumption-driven (OTS) unless sensor technology is deployed”, in which case Likelihood To See can be reported (IAB Europe V2 draft — primary).
Four ranked ways to estimate aisle penetration, from beacons in every store to a one-off market study, plus a 28-day pre- and post-exposure sales window (was 30) (IAB Europe V2 draft — primary; ExchangeWire, 17 Sep 2026 — directional).

What happened

Version 1 was finalised in December 2024. V2 comes out of an IAB Europe workshop on 1 July 2026 where retailers reviewed how V1 worked in practice, and it is candid about what they found. Inside the store, “the assumptions behind the benchmark calculation (footfall, aisle penetration, touchpoint compliance) effectively are the measurement”. So the draft asks retailers to disclose those assumptions, which aisle-penetration method they used, and whether a reported number is OTS or LTS.

The impression definition is deliberately aligned with the outdoor currencies: the draft cites Route in the UK and IDOOH in Germany as treating the impression the same way. Footfall itself can come from door scanners or from loyalty data at purchase. The draft is explicit that the proxy depends on category. Tesco, it notes, counts a purchase as an impression and de-duplicates repeat visits in the reporting window. In consumer electronics, where people browse without buying, that breaks down and door counters matter more. It also sets a hard ceiling: screen traffic and unduplicated audience “can never be more than the venue traffic counts”.

What it means for beauty

The booking book is the footfall count. The draft accepts a transaction as evidence of a visit. A salon appointment is a stronger version of the same signal: a named, timed, de-duplicable visit logged before the client arrives. A beauty network can fill in the first input of the six-metric formula from data it already keeps, as long as walk-ins and companions are counted separately rather than guessed.
Stop selling loop counts as audience. V2 demotes ad play to a supporting metric, which is the point our proof-of-play research makes from the other end: a play log proves scheduling, not an audience. Report plays as delivery evidence and report opportunity to see as the currency.
Show the multiplier, don’t hide it. The six-metric formula is an impression multiplier with its assumptions written out. For a network without sensors, disclosure of those assumptions is the measurement. The same conclusion runs through our measurement maturity analysis: modelled numbers are acceptable if they are labelled as modelled.
“Aisle penetration” has a salon equivalent, and it still needs a method. In a single-room salon the share of visitors who pass a screen is plausibly high, but that is an assumption until measured. The draft’s own ladder applies: a sensor-equipped sample of venues, extrapolated across the estate, beats a figure asserted in a media kit. Dwell is a separate question, and long dwell is not the same as long attention.
The buyer will arrive speaking this language. The draft’s own appendix uses a Laneige screen at Boots as its example of an in-store digital screen, and it files mascara under “semi-regularly purchased” (a 7–26 week sales window). Beauty budgets that move between retailer screens and venue networks will compare them on this framework, which is why our retail media vs place-based DOOH comparison matters more, not less.

The caveat that keeps us honest

This is a draft open for comment, and it may change before it is final. It is written for large retail stores, and its zone map is a big-box template. A standalone salon or clinic is not a “store zone” in its terms; the nearest fit is Zone 5’s catch-all for services inside a store, such as optometrists. Adopting the logic is a sensible choice, not a compliance requirement. OTS is, by the draft’s own definition, an opportunity to see, not evidence anyone looked. LTS needs sensors, and the draft flags possible GDPR implications, which our in-venue measurement research covers. Nothing beauty-specific is asserted here beyond what the linked Research supports, and no beauty impression, CPM or lift figure is implied.