Context - why we revisited the share‑of‑voice rule
Digital marketing has become more accountable and more complex. It is easy to optimize a performance campaign for short‑term clicks, yet harder to defend brand investment when budgets are tight. For all brands with high short-term revenue targets such as retailers, the question is simple: does shifting more budget into brand building drive long-term growth? To answer this we revisited the work of Les Binet and Peter Field. Their research shows a strong link between a brand’s share of voice (its advertising presence compared to competitors) and its share of market. Put simply: brands that invest more in advertising than their current market share tend to grow, while those that invest less tend to shrink. We combined this principle with WARC’s Multiplier Effect study, which demonstrates how advertising impact builds up over time and across channels to create a practical, actionable framework for our clients.
1. Revisiting the share‑of‑voice theory
What is share of voice? Share of voice is the proportion of total advertising spend in a category that your brand controls. For example, if your brand spends €0.8 million while the total category spends €10 million, your SOV is 8%. Share of market is the percentage of category sales your brand captures. While the concept is simple, in practice SOV can be tricky to measure accurately. Not all media channels are tracked consistently (e.g. digital platforms like Meta and Google), and spend estimates often rely on third-party data or market assumptions. Still, it remains a useful benchmark to compare brand investment levels within a category. Binet & Field found that:
- SOV above SOM is a predictor of growth: When a brand’s share of voice is higher than its share of market, the brand tends to grow; when it is lower, the brand tends to decline.
- Extra share of voice (ESOV) is the difference between SOV and SOM. Positive ESOV means you’re advertising ahead of your market share; negative ESOV implies under‑investment.
- Rule of thumb for growth: Nielsen analysed 123 brands and observed that a 10‑point positive ESOV produces roughly 0.5 percentage points of market‑share growth. However, returns vary by brand size, category and campaign quality, so the ratio should be treated as a planning guideline rather than a guarantee. Market leaders typically gain more per point of ESOV than challenger brands.
2. Why long‑term brand building matters
Binet & Field distinguish between brand building and sales activation. Brand building creates mental brand equity through broad reach, emotional stories and long‑term investment, whereas activation converts this equity into short‑term sales through targeted, rational messages. These two modes work over different timescales: brand campaigns deliver slower but larger paybacks, while activation produces quick but smaller uplifts. Their studies show that a budget split of around 60 % brand building and 40 % activation maximises effectiveness, though Binet stresses this is a guideline, not an iron rule.
Why invest in brand?
- Mental availability - Brand advertising builds memory structures that make consumers more likely to consider you when they are ready to buy. Without mental availability, performance campaigns must work harder and become less efficient.
- Pricing power and loyalty - A strong brand reduces price sensitivity and increases customer loyalty.
- Resilience in downturns - Brands that cut marketing budgets during recessions often lose relevance and market share, while those that maintain or increase spend emerge stronger.
Historical case: During the Great Depression, the ready-to-eat cereal market was led by Post. When the downturn hit, Post slashed its advertising, whereas its rival Kellogg doubled its ad budget, moved aggressively into radio and heavily promoted its new cereal Rice Krispies. By 1933, even as the economy cratered, Kellogg’s profits had risen almost 30% and it overtook Post to become the dominant player (Binet & Field, IPA Databank).
Recent case: A 2022 WARC analysis of global airlines found that consumer consideration fell three times more for airlines that reduced advertising than for those that maintained or increased spend. Small and mid-sized airlines that advertised saw five times higher consideration in markets where they ran campaigns. The low-cost carrier Wizz Air, for example, recovered 125% of its 2021 revenue after the pandemic (vs. 99% recovery for global airlines) by continuing to advertise. Airlines that increased spend achieved 16% higher brand consideration and a 64% higher consideration score in markets where they advertised, compared with those that held budgets flat (WARC, The Effectiveness of Brand Investment During Crisis, 2022).
3. The new mixed funnel
Recent WARC research argues that separating ‘brand’ and ‘performance’ is a false choice. The study shows that equity‑building and performance advertising work multiplicatively: a strong brand makes performance campaigns more efficient and performance ads reinforce brand equity.
These findings encourage marketers to think in terms of a mixed funnel: instead of a linear customer journey (awareness → consideration → conversion), brand and performance tactics operate concurrently, reinforcing each other. Creative platforms should “go deep” (integrate all assets) and “go long” (use strong brand ideas across platforms).
Importantly, this also has organizational consequences. If brand and performance are to work in synergy, they cannot be managed in silos. Teams need to collaborate closely, sharing data, insights and creative platforms. Otherwise, you risk fragmentation: brand campaigns that don’t translate into performance, or performance campaigns that lack long-term brand impact.
4. A practical exercise: estimating SOV and ESOV
To make the theory tangible, we analysed a retailer. Names and figures have been altered for confidentiality, but the methodology reflects a real planning exercise.
Step‑by‑step methodology
- Gather market spend data. Use sources such as Nielsen Ad Intel or local media agencies to estimate total category advertising spend (competitors included). For our category, the estimated spend was €10 million in 2024. While this does not fully capture all media investments (e.g. GAFAM are not reported), it provides a robust baseline. We assumed competitor spend grows 10 % in future scenarios, based on current trends in the industry.
- Calculate your SOV. Divide your brand’s advertising investment (brand only, taking out all performance budget such as search) by the total category spend. For example, €0.8 M / €10 M ≈ 8 % SOV.
- Determine your market share. Use revenue or unit sales to compute SOM. Our retailer’s market share was 10 %.
- Compute ESOV. Subtract SOM from SOV. Negative ESOV indicates under‑investment; positive ESOV suggests headroom for growth.
- Model scenarios. Adjust the brand and performance budgets to explore different SOV outcomes. We tested three scenarios.
- Estimate growth. Apply the 10 : 0.5 rule: every 10‑point ESOV can deliver ~0.5 ppts of market‑share growth, adjusting for brand size and category.
- Plot SOV vs SOM. Map the scenarios on a graph with a 45‑degree line (SOV=SOM) to visualise whether the brand is in the “growth” or “decline” zone.
*Competitor spend assumes 10 % increase in category advertising.
Visualising growth potential
The scatter plot below maps each scenario’s SOV (vertical axis) against the brand’s SOM (horizontal axis). The diagonal line represents parity (SOV = SOM). Points above the line indicate positive ESOV and potential growth; points below it indicate under‑investment and likely decline. In our slide‑based example, Scenario 2 (≈17.7 % SOV) sits comfortably above the parity line, while the current scenario (≈8 % SOV), Scenario 1 (≈7.3 % SOV) and Scenario 3 (≈8.9 % SOV) remain below it.
Balancing long‑term brand growth and short‑term performance
The scenarios above focus on how adjusting budgets affects extra share of voice and thus long‑term growth potential. However, shifting money from performance advertising into brand building has consequences. Performance campaigns drive immediate sales; reducing this spend can affect short‑term revenue and return on ad spend (ROAS). In our exercise, Scenario 2 triples the branding budget (from €0.8 M to €2.2 M) and halves the performance budget (from €2.7 M to €1.3 M). This lifts SOV from ≈8 % to ≈17.7 % and predicts significant long‑term market‑share growth, yet it also changes short‑term outcomes: revenue falls by -18.5% (with ROAS on the performance budget improving by 50%). On the other hand, Scenario 3 increases the total budget but remains performance‑dominant; revenue rises by 3% with ROAS dropping by 15% and SOV stays below parity. Marketers must therefore assess both outcomes:
- Short‑term impact: estimate how changes in performance budget affect conversions, revenue and ROAS. Scenario 2 produces a higher ROAS despite lower revenue because the performance budget is concentrated, whereas Scenario 3 generates more revenue but at lower efficiency.
- Long‑term impact: use share‑of‑voice and ESOV analysis to forecast how brand investment will influence mental availability and future sales. Scenario 2’s large positive ESOV signals headroom for market‑share gains, while Scenarios 1 and 3 remain in the under‑investment zone.
The optimal plan often lies between extremes. Scenario 3 shows that increasing the overall budget while keeping performance dominant still leaves SOV below parity and limits long‑term growth. Scenario 2 demonstrates that shifting budget to brand can dramatically increase SOV and improve performance efficiency, but may suppress short‑term revenue. A balanced approach might involve moderate increases in brand spend while maintaining sufficient performance budget to protect short‑term sales. Ultimately, combining SOV analysis with forecasting of both revenue and ROAS enables marketers to design media plans that drive growth now and in the future.
5. Practical guidance for advertisers
- Use SOV as a planning tool, not a single KPI. SOV/ESOV provides a useful benchmark for setting budgets and forecasting growth, but campaign quality, distribution, pricing and innovation all influence results
- Invest in creativity and broad reach. The Greatest Hits of Binet & Field report shows that brand building requires three ingredients: emotional stories, broad reach, and consistency. Among these, emotion is the most powerful driver of long-term effectiveness. Emotional campaigns build stronger memory structures, generate broader appeal (especially with light and new buyers), and create lasting associations that rational messages alone cannot achieve. Strong creative multiplies the efficiency of ESOV: creatively awarded campaigns deliver significantly greater market-share growth than non-awarded ones. In other words, it’s not just how much you invest, but how memorable and emotionally resonant your campaigns are that determines the return on your spend.
- Balance budgets around long‑term and short‑term goals. Use the 60/40 guideline as a starting point and adjust based on category maturity, purchase cycle and brand size. Growing brands often need to invest even more in brand to catch up
- Plan for a mixed funnel. Integrate brand and performance teams, align creative messages, and treat brand equity as a performance multiplier. A minimum of 30 % of spend should be reserved for brand building
- Build a robust measurement stack. Combine media‑mix modelling, incrementality experiments and brand‑equity tracking to attribute both immediate and long‑term effects. With increasing privacy regulation and signal loss, investing in first‑party data, consent management and server‑side tagging will ensure that both performance and brand campaigns remain measurable.
- Consider alternative proxies such as Share of Search. When traditional media data are unavailable, monitoring your brand’s share of search queries can be a predictive proxy for market share and brand health. Studies suggest that it can be a cheap and timely indicator of long‑term effects (see IPA’s Share of Search studies).
6. Conclusion
Les Binet and Peter Field’s share‑of‑voice research remains a powerful compass for marketers. Brands that advertise ahead of their market share tend to grow. Yet the world has moved on: digital channels blur the line between brand and performance, measurement is complicated by privacy regulations, and budgets are scrutinised more than ever. The Multiplier Effect study demonstrates that brand and performance are multiplicative, not mutually exclusive, and that over‑investing in performance can erode returns.
For our anonymised retailer, scenario‑analysis showed that simply maintaining budgets would keep the brand below the parity line, while reallocating investment into brand building produced positive extra share of voice and predicted growth. The exercise underscores a simple truth: long‑term growth requires a deliberate balance between brand equity and activation. By combining share‑of‑voice analysis with mixed‑funnel planning, marketers can set smarter budgets, forecast growth and navigate the performance era with confidence.
| LinkedinThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Eliott Pousset