Quick answer
Streaming now holds 47.5% of US TV viewing (Nielsen, December 2025), yet across the legal advertising markets we track the streaming share of ad spend ranges from 10% in Dallas-Fort Worth to 48% in Atlanta, so CTV delivers household-level targeting and 90%+ completion at $20-$40 CPM where broadcast cannot.
If you’re currently running broadcast TV and wondering whether CTV makes sense, here’s what the data shows. For a deeper look at the economics, see how much CTV advertising costs for law firms.
The Viewership Shift
First, the macro trend: Where people watch TV has fundamentally changed.
In 2021, broadcast and cable represented roughly 64% of TV viewing. Streaming was 26%. By May 2025, streaming surpassed linear television for the first time, at 47.5% streaming versus 44.2% for broadcast and cable combined.
This shift hasn’t paused. Each year, streaming gains share while linear declines. The trajectory is clear.
For law firms, this means your broadcast-only strategy reaches a shrinking share of TV viewers. You’re paying the same (or more) to reach fewer people.
Targeting: The Core Difference
This is where CTV and broadcast diverge most sharply.
Broadcast TV Targeting
- Demographics by program (Adults 25-54, etc.)
- Daypart selection (morning, primetime, etc.)
- Program selection as proxy
- Geographic by DMA only
CTV Targeting
- Household-level audience segments
- Behavioral and interest-based targeting
- Geographic down to zip code
- First-party data and retargeting
The difference isn’t subtle. Broadcast buys demographics and hopes the right people are watching. CTV identifies the right households and serves them ads.
For a PI firm, this means CTV can focus on households more likely to need legal services based on behaviors, demographics, geography, and more, rather than buying “Adults 25-54” and hoping for the best.
Completion Rates and Attention
How many people actually watch your ad?
Broadcast reality:
- Channel-flipping during commercials is endemic
- DVR viewers skip ads entirely
- No reliable measurement of actual ad viewing
- Ratings estimate exposure, not attention
CTV reality:
- 90-98% completion rates (ads are non-skippable)
- Full-screen, lean-back viewing environment
- Impression-level measurement of ad delivery
- Higher attention metrics in studies
When you pay for a CTV impression, someone watched your ad. When you pay for a broadcast impression, someone may have been in the room when your ad aired. The difference matters.
Cost Comparison
Raw CPM comparison:
| Channel | Typical CPM | What You’re Buying |
|---|---|---|
| Broadcast | $10-$25 | Demographic exposure in a market |
| CTV Programmatic | $20-$40 | Targeted household impressions |
| CTV Premium | $40-$60+ | Premium inventory, guaranteed placement |
CTV looks more expensive. But CPM isn’t the full picture.
The waste factor:
Broadcast reaches everyone in a demographic whether they need a lawyer or not. If 20% of Adults 25-54 might realistically need a PI attorney at some point, you’re paying to reach the other 80% too.
CTV can narrow that audience through targeting. If you reach households in your service area with demographic and behavioral signals that indicate higher propensity, your effective cost per qualified impression drops, even though the CPM is higher.
Where law firm dollars actually go:
The viewing audience has moved, but legal ad budgets have not moved evenly. The split between broadcast and streaming spend varies wildly by market, and that gap is the opportunity.
In Atlanta, a $12.9M/month legal ad market, streaming already takes 48% of advertiser spend, almost exactly matching where national viewership sits. In Dallas-Fort Worth, a $6.9M/month market, streaming takes just 10% while television still absorbs 56%. Same national viewing reality, two opposite responses.
Dallas shows the waste in raw form. Roughly 45% of TV viewing there happens on streaming, but more than 90% of legal ad dollars still buy linear. The firms running broadcast-heavy in Dallas are paying full price to reach a shrinking room, while the streaming audience sits largely uncontested. That is the structural inefficiency CTV targeting removes.
Measurement and Attribution
What can you prove?
Broadcast measurement:
- Nielsen ratings (sample-based estimates)
- GRPs (Gross Rating Points)
- Reach and frequency modeling
- Brand studies (expensive, infrequent)
- Very limited path-to-conversion tracking
CTV measurement:
- Impression-level logs (who saw what, when)
- Site visit attribution (IP matching)
- Call tracking integration
- Branded search lift measurement
- Cross-device tracking
- A/B testing capability
Broadcast was designed in an era before digital measurement. CTV was built with measurement in mind.
This matters for law firms because marketing accountability is increasing. If you can’t show what your TV spend produces, it becomes harder to justify. CTV provides the data infrastructure that broadcast lacks.
Reach and Scale
One area where broadcast maintains an advantage: raw reach, particularly for certain content.
Live sports: Still predominantly watched on broadcast and cable. Major sporting events reach audiences that streaming hasn’t captured.
Local news: Older demographics still watch local news on broadcast. For some firms, this remains valuable inventory.
Mass awareness: If you need to reach everyone in a market quickly, broadcast’s broad reach can accomplish that faster than building CTV frequency.
The counterpoint: Streaming reach has grown dramatically. You can now achieve significant reach through CTV, just through a different mechanism (household-by-household rather than broad coverage).
The Right Mix
For most law firms, the answer isn’t CTV or broadcast. It’s both, allocated intelligently.
Broadcast Strengths
- Live sports and events
- Older demographics (65+)
- Mass reach when speed matters
- Brand presence in traditional media
CTV Strengths
- Cord-cutters and cord-nevers
- Precision targeting by household
- Measurable attribution
- Younger and higher-income demographics
A common evolution: Firms that historically spent 100% on broadcast are shifting to 60-70% broadcast and 30-40% CTV, then adjusting based on results. Some have flipped those ratios entirely as streaming viewership has grown.
The Decision Framework
Consider CTV Primary When
- Your market has high streaming penetration
- You value measurement and attribution
- Your budget needs to work efficiently
- Targeting younger or higher-income demographics
- You want to reach cord-cutters competitors miss
Maintain Broadcast When
- Your target demographic watches linear heavily (65+)
- Live sports are important in your market
- You have budget for true mass reach
- Your competitors are absent from broadcast (rare)
Most firms benefit from a mix, weighted toward whichever channel delivers better results for their specific market and audience.
The Bottom Line
Broadcast TV isn’t dead, but it’s declining. CTV isn’t a future trend. It’s where the audience has already moved.
The firms gaining ground are the ones who followed their audience to streaming while competitors remained broadcast-only. They’re reaching households that never see traditional TV commercials. They’re measuring what works and optimizing accordingly.
The question isn’t whether to add CTV. It’s how to balance CTV and broadcast for your specific market. Our guide to CTV vs traditional advertising covers the full decision framework.