Marketers may be bullish on digital, but data again shows they are overlooking one of the strongest assets around. Despite ranking low in perceived effectiveness, radio delivers double the returns on investment, outperforming all other platforms but one.
As reported by Katz Radio Group, radio ranks at the bottom in perceived effectiveness among all media categories surveyed by Nielsen, with just 46% of marketers believing it’s a strong performer. However, when measured by actual average ROI, radio ranks second overall, delivering $2.00 for every advertising dollar spent.
By contrast, social media, rated highest in perceived effectiveness at 71%, is the only medium to outperform radio in ROI, coming in at $2.22. Meanwhile, formats like search and video advertising, which share the same high perception level as social, deliver much lower returns, at $1.16 and $1.56, respectively.
The discrepancy underscores how, despite strong real-world performance, radio continues to be undervalued in media buying strategies. Other traditional formats, such as print and TV, also saw relatively strong ROI performance at $1.47 each, though they scored only slightly better than radio in perception.
Nielsen’s findings are based on two data sets: perceived effectiveness as reported by marketers in the Global Annual Marketing Survey, and actual ROI figures pulled from the company’s Global Compass Benchmarks.
This complements findings from Edison Research’s Q1 2025 Share of Ear report about reach perceptions. Radio held a 68% share of ad-supported audio among US adults, vastly outperforming industry perception, where marketers estimated its share at just 27%. Pandora and Spotify, meanwhile, were believed to command 43% combined, though each only held 5%.
The disconnect is even greater in the car, where AM/FM commands 85% of ad-supported audio time, dwarfing podcasts (7%) and ad-supported Spotify (2%).
With radio outperforming expectations in real ROI and reach while underperforming in perception, the data again points to a potential opportunity for advertisers to reconsider how they allocate budget across channels.
TheBiggerA, on surface I understand your point. However the story is centered on the wide disparity between supposedly knowledgable media buying pros and the reality of how low their personal favorites actually perform. Re Nielsen and Edison research, they are third party research companies under close scrutiny and both are transparent in their sampling and compiling process. Digital, conversely, uses their own metrics based on self measurement with no third party rating or EMRC style accreditation of their stated effectiveness.
Media buying pros generally do not have “personal favorites.” They buy the media that produces the best results. And best results based on actual performance, not based on self-industry generated “studies.” Someone may call them self-serving because the buyer is not buying what they’re selling. That’s nothing to do with reality.
Sorry, these “studies” are t worth the paper they are printed on. Katz is a radio company… Agencies look upon “studies” done by companies within an industry, as self-serving … at best.
Comments are closed.