The Maze:
Source: iSpot. Official Q3 graphic shows streaming and linear conversion rates; the separate GEICO panel highlights an advertising creative. The outcomes comparison covers 30 brands, rather than GEICO alone.
Streaming took almost half of estimated US national television advertising spend in iSpot’s third-quarter snapshot, while delivering about a fifth of measured ad impressions. For brands deciding where to buy TV advertising, the contrast raises a practical question: what extra value earns the higher price of each streaming exposure?
The Details:
Money and exposure tell different stories. PPC Land’s reporting puts streaming at 48.74% of estimated spend and 21.93% of impressions during July–September 2026. The comparison covers 50 consumer streaming apps and 187 traditional television channels. Traditional, or linear, TV runs programmes on a schedule; streaming delivers video through internet services. An impression counts an ad exposure, rather than a unique person or a minute watched. These are estimates within iSpot’s measured US market, not audited revenue or worldwide totals.
The price gap needs an explanation. Dividing each channel’s spending share by its impression share implies that an average streaming impression cost roughly 3.4 times a linear impression. That calculation mixes many different placements, so it is no price quote for an equivalent audience. iSpot, a TV advertising measurement company, presents targeting as a reason brands value streaming: buyers can concentrate spending on particular audiences. Its official report page confirms that estimated spending, ad exposures and advertiser outcomes are separate parts of the snapshot. Paying more per exposure can make sense if the selected audience is sufficiently valuable. The spending split alone cannot establish that value.
A higher action rate is a different test. iSpot’s public graphic shows a 3.49% streaming conversion rate against 0.69% for linear TV. The report’s outcomes analysis uses a separate 30-brand sample, not the entire spending comparison. A conversion means an advertiser’s chosen action, which may be a cart addition rather than a completed purchase. PPC Land reports a 14-day window after exposure and says half the sampled brands still recorded more total actions on linear. iSpot’s attribution product page also distinguishes linking an ad exposure to later activity from measuring the additional activity the advertising actually caused.
MarketMaze Take:
The snapshot earns a place in a budget discussion, but it does not pick the winning channel. Streaming’s targeting and linear TV’s broad reach can serve different jobs. The useful question is how much a buyer pays for an additional valuable action, with both channels assessed on the same basis.
A strong rate can hide a smaller result. A narrow audience can produce a high percentage of people taking action while a broader audience delivers more actions in total. The fact that 15 sampled brands recorded more linear conversions makes that trade-off concrete. Neither the rate nor the volume settles profitability without the relevant campaign costs.
The comparison method travels; these US shares do not. Buyers elsewhere can use the same distinction between exposure, observed action and additional sales. But they cannot apply these market averages to their own campaigns. Combining the whole-market price ratio with the separate sample’s conversion rates would manufacture a cost comparison the evidence never measured.
Sources: PPC Land, iSpot report, iSpot attribution
