Radio has been a PI advertising staple for decades. But as audiences shift, is radio still effective compared to CTV? Here’s how they compare.
The Fundamental Difference
Option A
Option B
56% attention rate for CTV vs. significantly lower for background audio media.
Reach Comparison
Radio Reach
- Local stations have loyal audiences
- Drive-time peaks
- AM/FM plus streaming audio
- Fragmented across many stations
CTV Reach
- 90% of households use streaming
- 44.8% of TV time is streaming
- Growing audience
- Consolidated through major platforms
Both reach substantial audiences, through very different contexts.
Engagement Comparison
Radio Engagement
Strengths:
- Frequency through repetition
- Voice familiarity (host reads)
- Captive audience (commutes)
- Local feel
Limitations:
- Background medium (partial attention)
- No visual recall
- Message must be simple
- Distraction competition
CTV Engagement
Strengths:
- 94-96% completion rates
- Full attention environment
- Visual + audio branding
- Premium content context
Limitations:
- Less repetition at same budget
- No portability
- Higher production requirements
Cost Comparison
Radio Costs
| Factor | Typical Range |
|---|---|
| :30 spot (local) | $50-300+ |
| Production | $500-2,500 |
| Frequency packages | Varies |
| Effective CPM | $5-15 |
Radio is cost-efficient for frequency.
CTV Costs
| Factor | Typical Range |
|---|---|
| CPM | $35-50 |
| Production | $15,000-35,000 |
| Minimum budget | $15,000-25,000/month |
CTV requires higher investment but delivers more per impression.
True Cost Consideration
Radio’s low CPM comes with:
- Lower attention per impression
- No visual branding
- Harder to measure
- Requires very high frequency
Production Comparison
Radio Production
- Simple to produce
- $500-2,500 typical
- Quick turnaround
- Easy to test variations
- Multiple versions feasible
CTV Production
- More complex
- $15,000-35,000 typical
- 4-8 week timeline
- Fewer variations at start
- Significant investment
Radio’s production simplicity is a legitimate advantage for testing.
Measurement Comparison
Radio Measurement
- Very difficult to attribute
- “How did you hear about us?” relies on recall
- No click/visit tracking
- Lift studies possible but expensive
- Mostly faith-based
CTV Measurement
- Verified visit tracking
- Multi-touch attribution
- Call tracking integration
- Branded search correlation
- Accountable performance
CTV’s measurability is a major advantage.
Targeting Comparison
Radio Targeting
- Station format (demo proxy)
- Geographic (signal area)
- Daypart
- Limited precision
CTV Targeting
- Geographic (zip code level)
- Behavioral signals
- First-party data
- Audience segments
- Precision targeting
CTV offers significantly better targeting options.
Creative Effectiveness
Radio Creative
- Must hook in 3-5 seconds
- Phone number repetition essential
- Jingles can aid recall
- Voice/personality driven
- Limited message complexity
CTV Creative
- Visual + audio storytelling
- Emotional impact possible
- Brand personality shown
- More message capacity
- Faces create connection
For law firms, the ability to show the attorney and build visual recognition is valuable.
Where Radio Works
Radio still makes sense for:
- Very tight budgets
- Frequency building (repetition)
- Specific drive-time capture
- Local personality endorsements
- Testing message concepts
- Supplementing TV presence
Radio Sweet Spots
| Scenario | Radio Fit |
|---|---|
| $5K/month budget | May be only option |
| Drive-time commuter focus | Strong |
| Host-read endorsements | Effective |
| Message testing | Good |
| Primary awareness channel | Weak |
Where CTV Wins
CTV outperforms for:
- Brand building
- Measurable performance
- Professional credibility
- Visual recognition
- Modern audiences
- Accountable ROI
CTV Sweet Spots
| Scenario | CTV Fit |
|---|---|
| $20K+/month budget | Primary channel |
| Brand building priority | Essential |
| Measurement requirements | Only real option |
| Premium positioning | Strong |
| Multi-channel integration | Superior |
The Integration Question
Radio + CTV
Some firms run both:
- CTV for visual brand building
- Radio for frequency extension
- Different audiences, same message
Works when:
- Budget supports both
- Messaging aligned
- Measurement accounts for both
Budget allocation: If doing both: 70-80% CTV, 20-30% radio
Radio Alone vs. CTV Alone
Given same budget:
- CTV provides more measurable impact
- CTV builds visual brand
- CTV audiences are growing
- CTV integrates with search
For most PI firms, CTV is the better primary investment.
The Audience Trend
Radio Listening
- Stable but not growing
- AM/FM → Podcasts/streaming audio
- Younger audiences leaving
- Drive-time remains strong
CTV Viewing
- 71% growth since 2021
- Audiences shifting from linear TV
- All demographics adopting
- Clear growth trajectory
Following audience trends favors CTV.
The Recommendation
If Choosing One
CTV for most PI firms. Better brand building, measurable results, growing audience.
If Budget Allows Both
CTV primary (70-80%), radio supplementary for frequency and specific dayparts.
If Very Limited Budget
Consider radio for frequency, but know measurement limitations.
For complete channel comparison, see the CTV vs traditional advertising guide.
References
- Decentriq. (2025). CTV advertising: The complete guide. https://www.decentriq.com/article/ctv-advertising
- Nielsen. (2025). Connected TV: Transforming advertising trends. https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2025/connected-tv-transforming-advertising-trends/
- Nielsen. (2025). Streaming reaches historic TV milestone. https://www.nielsen.com/news-center/2025/streaming-reaches-historic-tv-milestone/
- IAB & Innovid. (2022). CTV takes center stage. https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Innovid_CTV-Takes-Center-Stage.pdf