New Studies Continue To Show Audio Ads Outperform Video.

New year, same conclusion: research studies comparing audio and video advertising continue to show greater effectiveness and ROI for audio.

“Those that closely follow advertising effectiveness results are not surprised,” Cumulus Media/Westwood One Audio Active Group Chief Insights Officer Pierre Bouvard says in an analysis of several such studies in Westwood One’s blog. “[These] reveal audio ads trump video ads in attentiveness, engagement and sales effect.”

A joint effort from audio specialist agency Oxford Road and sales attribution measurement firm Podscribe examining more than 1,000 podcast campaigns across over 100 brands, found that spending $1 million on YouTube podcast impressions resulted in a loss of $250,000 in conversion value vs. audio podcast campaigns. Put another way, YouTube podcast views are 18% to 25% less effective at driving purchases than audio podcast ads.

There are three explanations for audio’s greater effectiveness, according to Oxford Road and Podscribe: 1) audio listeners often seek out content intentionally, fostering stronger host connections, while YouTube viewers tend to be passive and algorithm-driven; 2) audio podcast listeners are often focused on the host’s voice and recommendations, creating a more intimate and persuasive environment; and 3) YouTube audiences don’t pay as much attention due to either multitasking or a distracting visual element, making ads feel less personal.

A Nature Research study comparing consumer response to both the “Game of Thrones” audio book and TV series found greater engagement with the former, based on physiological responses such as heart rate, body temperature and galvanic skin response.

“Audio narratives require active participation to imagine the story,” Bouvard says. “Video narratives require less of the audience, resulting in passive engagement. Thus the ‘sight, sound, and motion’ ideal that brands seek actually results in less engagement than the same ad on a podcast or AM/FM radio.”

Attentiveness measurement firm Adelaide — which measures how ads on media platforms get noticed, hold attention and impact memory — found a significant difference in ad attention across media platforms. 

“In order to achieve the same degree of AM/FM radio advertising attention, twice as much would have to be spent on display digital ads, TikTok, Snapchat, LinkedIn, and Reddit,” Bouvard notes. “Platforms such as YouTube and connected TV would require less than $1,000 to match the attentiveness of a $1,000 AM/FM radio ad investment.”

Another Adelaide study shows that not only do audio platforms generate the same attentiveness as TV, but they do so at a significantly lower cost to advertisers. Compared to linear TV, AM/FM has 85% of the attentiveness at one-fourth the CPM, while streaming audio has 86%, and podcasts 94%, the attentiveness of linear TV.

In conjunction with global media agency Dentsu, another attentiveness measurement firm, Luman, also found audio had greater effectiveness, brand recall and cost efficiency than video.

Results of a WPP Media study showed that digital audio’s short-term ROI tied for first, outperforming the all-media average by 44%, with broadcast radio second, surpassing average ROI by +23%, both comfortably ahead of video options.

“Why does increased visual branding generate so little lifts in brand recall? Attentiveness studies reveal that only 40% of TV ad occurrences are seen,” Bouvard says. “Most of the time, TV ads are only heard or play to empty rooms. In video ads, audio branding does all the heavy lifting to drive brand recall.”