The Wrong Question
“Connected TV advertising” gets 720 monthly searches. “OTT advertising” gets 1,300. Together, these terms represent over 2,000 people each month trying to figure out the same thing: how to reach the audience that stopped watching traditional television.
The first thing most articles do is define the difference between CTV and OTT. They explain that CTV means the device (smart TV, Roku, Fire Stick) and OTT means the delivery method (content streamed over the internet). This is technically correct and practically useless.
For law firms making advertising decisions, the relevant question is not what to call it. The relevant question is how much of your market’s legal advertising budget reaches the streaming audience, and how much of it doesn’t.
What CTV and OTT Actually Mean
For clarity, here are the definitions.
CTV (Connected TV) is the hardware. Any television connected to the internet that can stream content. Smart TVs, Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, gaming consoles.
OTT (Over-the-Top) is the delivery. Video content delivered over the internet, bypassing traditional cable or satellite distribution. Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV, Paramount+, Peacock, Tubi.
Where they overlap. When someone watches Hulu on a Roku device, they’re watching OTT content on a CTV device. The ad they see was delivered via OTT to a CTV screen. In practice, the advertising industry uses “CTV” as the default term for all streaming television advertising. The full connected TV vs OTT breakdown covers the technical distinctions that actually matter for buyers.
Where they diverge. OTT includes streaming on phones, tablets, and laptops. CTV includes only television screens. For law firm advertising, the distinction matters because CTV (big screen, living room, shared viewing) delivers higher completion rates and greater attention than OTT on mobile devices. Understanding the ROI of CTV advertising depends on knowing which screen you’re buying.
AdImpact tracks both. Their legal advertising data covers CTV impressions on television screens, measured through a panel of 23 million monitored smart TVs using automated content recognition technology.
The Number That Actually Matters
Forget CTV versus OTT. Here is the number that matters for every personal injury firm spending on advertising in the country.
Legal services account for 6.11% of all local broadcast impressions nationally. On CTV, that share is 2.86%. The gap between those two numbers represents the delta between where legal advertisers spend and where audiences actually watch.
That gap is closing. Legal CTV impression share hit 3.53% in Q4 2025, the highest quarter on record. But the gap still exists in most markets, and it is widest in the DMAs where traditional advertising infrastructure is most entrenched.
Market-by-Market: Where Streaming Advertising Actually Goes
Our data tracks CTV/streaming allocation across 210 markets. The variation is extreme.
Markets where streaming gets its fair share:
| Market | CTV Share | Monthly CTV Spend | What This Means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atlanta | 48% | $6.1M | Nation’s streaming leader, 7 of top 10 firms over 50% CTV |
| Los Angeles | 33% | ~$7.4M | Largest absolute CTV spend among all markets |
| Las Vegas | 33% | ~$1.5M | High adoption in a mid-size market |
Markets where it does not:
| Market | CTV Share | Monthly CTV Spend | What This Means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Washington DC | 3% | ~$78K | 73% broadcast, first CTV entrant owns the channel |
| Boston | 9% | ~$288K | Morgan at 30% share, all broadcast |
| Dallas | 10% | ~$665K | Thomas J. Henry at 35%, 91.5% traditional |
| New York | 11% | ~$1.6M | Largest market, lowest tier CTV adoption |
The markets with the lowest CTV adoption aren’t small or unsophisticated. They are New York, Dallas, Boston, and Washington DC. These are markets with the deepest broadcast infrastructure, the longest agency relationships, and the heaviest legacy spending patterns.
Why the CTV vs OTT Distinction Trips Up Law Firms
The terminology creates confusion that delays decisions. Here is how it plays out.
A managing partner hears they should be on “CTV.” They ask their marketing director about it. The marketing director researches and finds conflicting definitions. Some vendors pitch “OTT campaigns,” others pitch “CTV campaigns,” and the differences seem unclear. The conversation stalls. The budget stays on broadcast for another quarter.
This pattern repeats across the industry. The fragmented terminology creates a perceived complexity that does not match the actual buying process. In reality, buying streaming television ads for a law firm in a specific DMA works like this.
- Choose a buying method (programmatic DSP, managed service, or publisher direct).
- Set geographic targeting (your DMA, or specific zip codes within it).
- Set audience parameters (age, interests, or behavioral segments).
- Deliver 15 or 30-second video ads to streaming viewers in your market.
Whether those ads are technically “CTV” (because they appear on a TV screen) or “OTT” (because they’re delivered over the internet) doesn’t change the campaign setup, the CTV advertising cost, or the audience.
The Channel Mix That Works
Our data shows three proven approaches to streaming advertising among successful legal advertisers.
Streaming-first (60%+ CTV). Thompson Law runs 68.7% streaming in Atlanta. Dennis Law Firm runs 74.6%. Dozier runs 81.3%. These firms treat CTV as their primary channel and broadcast as the supplement. This works in markets with high streaming adoption and younger demographics.
Balanced (40-60% CTV). Montlick (54.5%), Gary Martin Hays (50.8%), and Kenneth Nugent (60.0%) split budgets roughly evenly. They maintain broadcast for mass reach while building streaming for targeted frequency. This is the strategy most large firms will adopt over the next two to three years.
Streaming as competitive wedge (20-40% CTV). Thompson Law in Dallas runs 38.3% streaming in a market that allocates just 10% overall. Frenkel and Frenkel runs 12.2%. These firms use CTV to reach an audience their broadcast-dominant competitors largely ignore.
All three approaches work, and the broader guide to streaming TV advertising for law firms covers how to choose between them. The determining factor is not channel preference but market context and competitive positioning.
What Gets Lost in the Terminology Debate
While agencies argue about CTV versus OTT definitions, the real structural shift is happening in the data.
CTV advertising spend in the legal category grew 241% between Q1 2023 and Q4 2025, a trend detailed in our analysis of where $150 million in legal advertising goes. Total US CTV ad spend reached $33.35 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to $38 billion in 2026. By 2028, CTV ad spend is expected to surpass traditional TV advertising for the first time.
For law firms, the terminology matters less than the trajectory. The audience is moving to streaming. The advertising budgets are following, but slowly. Markets where legal CTV adoption is under 15% represent a window where streaming inventory is available at competitive rates with minimal competition from the established broadcast advertisers.
That window will not stay open. Atlanta went from moderate CTV adoption to 48% as firms piled into streaming. When that shift happens in Dallas, Boston, or New York, the CPMs will increase and the first-mover advantage will be gone.
Call it CTV. Call it OTT. Call it streaming. The name does not matter. The allocation does.
References
- AdImpact. "Legal Advertising Trends Report, Q1 2026." 2026.
- IAB. "2025 Digital Video Ad Spend and Strategy Report." 2025.
- eMarketer. "US TV and Connected TV Ad Spending Forecasts, H2 2025." 2025.
- Nielsen. "Streaming Reaches Historic TV Milestone, Eclipses Combined Broadcast and Cable Viewing." 2025.