Should marketers accept that any media channel deserve an arbitrary proportion of a media budget, or would a more useful assessment of this research focus on principle rather than a percentage? Bench Media co-founder and COO Shai Luft argues that replacing the digital Kool-Aid with a radio flavour is not the answer.
When Mark Ritson tells marketers to drink less digital Kool-Aid and invest 11 per cent of their media budget into radio, the industry pays attention. He has earned a reputation for cutting through marketing nonsense and anchoring his arguments in evidence.
That is exactly why this claim deserves scrutiny. Not because radio does not work, it absolutely can. And not because digital is beyond criticism, it is not. The issue is the leap from an observed pattern to a universal “sweet spot”, as if one number can apply neatly across every brand, category and growth challenge.
The 11 per cent figure, amplified in coverage coming out of HEARD 26, appears to stem from analysis of Australian effectiveness case studies. In simple terms, the takeaway is that campaigns allocating around 11 per cent of their media budget to audio delivered stronger business and brand effects than those that did not.
On the surface, that is compelling. In a media landscape obsessed with short term performance metrics and attribution dashboards, any evidence that reinforces the value of broad reach channels is a welcome correction.
But we need to be clear about what the number actually represents. This is retrospective analysis of campaigns that already performed well. It identifies a correlation within a dataset of effectiveness cases, rather than proving causality through controlled experimentation.
It also does not demonstrate that 11 per cent is meaningfully better than 9 per cent, 14 per cent or 18 per cent across all categories and objectives. It is an observed average from a specific sample, not a universal marketing constant.
The moment we start treating it like a rule, we drift into dangerous territory.
Marketing effectiveness is contextual. Category dynamics influence how channels perform. Brand maturity shapes the balance between short term activation and long term brand building. Geographic footprint, distribution, pricing power and competitive intensity change the equation again.
A national FMCG brand defending share in a mature market will rarely require the same channel mix as a challenger fintech trying to drive trial in a few metro pockets. Suggesting both should default to the same audio allocation assumes a level of homogeneity that simply does not exist.
There is also the question of context in how the data is framed. Effectiveness databases and industry analysis can provide valuable real-world insight, and that should not be dismissed.
At the same time, these findings have been circulated in forums backed by commercial radio interests, and the methodology is not public in a way that allows independent replication and critique. That does not automatically invalidate the conclusion, but it does mean marketers should treat the headline with informed curiosity rather than blind acceptance. When any industry body promotes research that conveniently concludes advertisers should spend more in that channel, healthy scepticism is not cynicism, it is part of the job.
The other issue is the classic one: correlation versus causation. The highest performing campaigns tend to share a set of traits that go well beyond channel split. They are typically well funded, creatively strong, built for broad reach and executed with consistent flighting. Many also benefit from positive excess share of voice. If successful campaigns often include audio at around 11 per cent, it may be because strong marketers build balanced channel mixes, not because 11 per cent is a magic threshold. Audio may be a marker of strategic maturity rather than the sole driver of effectiveness.
None of this is an argument against audio. In fact, the broader challenge to digital absolutism is timely. Over-investment in performance channels at the expense of brand building has skewed marketing behaviour for years. Attribution models have encouraged narrow optimisation, sometimes at the cost of long term growth. In that context, reminding marketers that broad reach channels like radio can play a meaningful role is both valid and necessary.
The problem begins when the message shifts from “audio deserves a seat at the table” to “11 per cent is the sweet spot for everyone.” Replacing one form of channel dogma with another does not move the industry forward. It just swaps digital tribalism for audio evangelism.
A more useful interpretation of this research would focus on the principle rather than the percentage. Are brands under-investing in channels that build mental availability at scale? Are they over-indexing on short term metrics that undervalue reach and frequency? Are they constructing media plans that reflect real audience behaviour, rather than platform bias and legacy habits?
Those are the questions worth debating, and they can lead to better outcomes regardless of whether the right number is 11 per cent, 6 per cent, 20 per cent or something else entirely.
Ultimately, the role of a modern marketer is not to chase quotable ratios, it is to interrogate them. If 11 per cent is right for your brand because your modelling, testing and market conditions support it, great. If your category requires more, less, or none at all, that can be equally rational. What matters is clarity on objectives, growth ambition and the incremental contribution of each channel, not adherence to a neat number.
Ritson is right to challenge blind faith in digital. That correction is overdue. But the industry should resist the temptation to canonise another portable statistic. Marketing does not need more commandments. It needs deeper analysis, better experimentation, and a little more humility about how rarely effectiveness fits inside a single percentage point.
