The Maze: Meta, the company behind Facebook, Instagram and Threads, is forecast to collect 76.1% of US social-network advertising spending in 2026 while accounting for 41.0% of the time US adults spend on social networks. Those shares measure different things: advertisers' dollars and people's minutes. The EMARKETER forecast exposes a large gap between attention and advertising money. It does not tell a retailer which platform will sell more products for the next dollar spent.
Meta's spending share exceeds its time share by 35.1 percentage points. That is the subtraction of 41.0 from 76.1, rather than a 35.1% increase over an earlier year. There is no earlier year in this comparison. Put plainly, Meta receives roughly three quarters of the market's advertising money while hosting about two fifths of adult social-media time. Its spending share is approximately 1.86 times its time share. That ratio describes market concentration; it is not a measure of advertising return, revenue per user or the price of showing an ad.
Competitors collectively hold more time than advertising money. Subtracting Meta from each 100% total leaves other networks with 23.9% of spending and 59.0% of time. These are calculated remainders. The original separates TikTok from other networks but hides their individual numbers, so we combine them rather than manufacture precise platform shares. This is a reason to investigate how a rival converts attention into demand. It is not evidence that TikTok, Reddit or Snapchat offers cheaper customer acquisition. A lower share of spending can coexist with weak advertising results.
A minute of use is not a standard unit of advertising value. The time measure covers US adults aged 18 and over using the relevant platforms through any device. Meta's grouping includes Facebook, Instagram and Threads, and excludes WhatsApp. Advertising spending uses net revenues after traffic acquisition costs and direct advertising revenue sharing. It includes creator content promoted with paid ads but excludes payments to creators to produce sponsored posts. These boundaries matter: the two shares are not a matched count of people watching the same number of ads. Ad volume, pricing and the ability to reach likely buyers could help explain the gap, but this evidence does not isolate their contributions.
The forecast supports a test, not an automatic budget transfer. EMARKETER dates the spending forecast to August 2026 and the time forecast to May. These are estimates for 2026, not confirmed full-year outcomes or proof that Meta's lead is growing. For a retailer, a useful test would compare the extra customers or profit a channel creates after advertising and other costs. A platform can look inexpensive per ad shown and still be expensive per sale. Equally, a platform can charge more and deliver enough additional profitable orders to justify it. Neither outcome is measured here, so the spending gap should prompt a question rather than supply the answer.
Why it matters: Attention gives an advertising business something to sell; it does not set the price or guarantee a sale for the advertiser. Retailers can use this US comparison to challenge the assumption that budgets should follow minutes of use. Outside the US, that question remains useful, but these percentages do not travel. Test the local audience, advertising product and additional profit before calling an overlooked platform a bargain. A smaller bill is only useful if it buys something that matters.
Sources: EMARKETER Forecast, August 2026, shared by Vladimir Hanzlik. Time forecast: May 2026; exhibit 374347.
