GIG Retail and RMI on paper: what their service descriptions say and what they cannot prove

What to take away

Neither page names a client, carries a dated result or states a fee basis, so no verdict on delivery is possible from published material alone.
GIG Retail's Our approach page sets out scope from selected operational work through to retail-media network management, and stops at scope.
RMI's How we help retailers page covers media sales on behalf of retailers, plus planning, execution and reporting. Its promotional figures are marketing copy, not engagement evidence.
An appointment decision needs a named client contact, dated campaign figures, reporting definitions, the fee basis and a named assurance route.
Hold any ranking of the two agencies until those items exist for one specified assignment.

The two service pages side by side

This inspection, dated 6 September 2026, covers two published pages and nothing else. No engagement, account access, proposal or customer feedback was reviewed.

GIG Retail: Our approach

Stated scope: Selected operational work, retail-media network management
Named client: None identified
Dated result with figures: None identified
Fee basis or billing unit: Not stated
Technology partners: Not named
Reporting definitions: Not stated
Publication version: Not supplied

RMI: How we help retailers

Stated scope: Media sales for retailers, planning, execution, reporting
Named client: None identified
Dated result with figures: Promotional results, no engagement dates
Fee basis or billing unit: Not stated
Technology partners: Not named
Reporting definitions: Described, terms not defined
Publication version: Not supplied

Empty entries are the finding, and the same-site supplier records article shows how to hold a provider list to evidence rather than awards.

GIG Retail: scope stated, delivery unproven

GIG Retail's page describes support running from selected operational work to retail-media network management. For a retailer weighing which tasks stay in-house, that sets out scope only.

It does not settle the contract, the assigned team or the technology split for a named retailer. Claims about growth or investment returns stand as marketing copy, not observed outcomes.

Ask which activities would belong to the proposed engagement and which stay with the retailer. The page can shape that question, but it cannot support a satisfaction score or a recommendation to appoint.

RMI: sales, planning and reporting without engagement evidence

RMI's How we help retailers page describes media sales on behalf of retailers, alongside planning, execution and reporting. Its wider scope runs across online and offline activity, so restrict any digital comparison to the retailer-controlled inventory named in the brief.

Testimonials and promotional results appear on the page. They carry no engagement date, no named client and no measurement terms, so this review adopts none of them.

Any comparison needs the proposed activity and the evidence required. The contract workstreams behind a retail media deal give a starting list for that written request.

A six-item evidence request before appointment

Use this list for GIG Retail, RMI or any other England retail-media agency. Request the items in writing before a pitch, not after it.

A named client contact willing to speak about a comparable assignment.
Dated campaign figures tied to a stated measurement method.
Reporting definitions, including what counts as a delivered impression.
The fee basis before VATretainer, media commission or project rate.
Named technology partners, and who holds the customer data.
A named assurance route for security and privacy questions on the actual service.

Before you act

Specify retailer, assignment, engagement version, review period
Appoint competent reviewers, obtain authorised delivery evidence
Disclose supplier involvement in selecting records
Hold inventory scope, deliverables, reporting terms constant
Identify proposed activity, responsible parties, evidence needs
Confirm publication's full conflicts position before publication

Where external rules and definitions fit

The NCSC's supply-chain security guidance covers third-party access to information. It gives a UK source for asking about technology partners, and it is not an audit of either agency.

For measurement and testing, the ICO's guide to the UK GDPR sets out lawful basis and data handling questions for any agency running off-site or in-store tests. Wikipedia's entry on retail media defines the off-site route, which uses retailer data across other publishers' inventory.

Reporting claims need the same boundary. A fixed reporting definition keeps what counts as delivery separate from what counts as effect. Ad requests, rendered placements and visibility differ from attention, and a modelled estimate needs its method stated.

Common questions

Which agency is better for an England retailer?

Neither can be ranked above the other on what the two pages publish. A comparison needs the same inventory, the same deliverable list and the same reporting definitions for one assignment.

What should I ask both agencies first?

Ask for a named client contact and dated campaign figures from a comparable assignment, plus the fee basis stated before VAT. All three were absent from both pages.

Is either agency independent of the retailers it sells for?

Not established. Both pages describe selling on retailer-owned properties, and no sponsorship, affiliate arrangement or conflict position was verified for this review.

Can a service page stand as proof of security or data compliance?

No. A service page is not an assurance report. Ask which assessment covers the actual service, who performed it and when.