Coke and Nike Spend Harder While Google and Meta Spend Less
TL;DR: A WARC Media report finds a two-speed ad market: top consumer-goods marketers lifted their ad-to-sales ratio from 11.6% in 2023 to 12.5% in 2025, while Alphabet and Meta cut combined ad-to-sales from 13% in 2019 to 7.4% in 2025 even as their revenue grew 146%.
Two economies, moving in opposite directions
A WARC Media report, covered on 15 October 2026, exposes a marketplace running at two speeds. The world's biggest consumer-goods marketers lifted their ad-to-sales ratio from 11.6% in 2023 to 12.5% in 2025, pushing a rising share of revenue back into advertising.
The companies that sell the ads are doing the opposite. Alphabet and Meta cut their combined ad-to-sales ratio from 13% in 2019 to 7.4% in 2025 — even as their combined revenue grew 146%. Across 25 major US advertisers, the overall ratio slipped to 5.5%.
That 5.5% average hides the split rather than explaining it. A handful of structurally advantaged giants dragging the mean down sits alongside a cohort of legacy brands pushing their own ratios up — two very different realities averaged into one misleading number. The headline figure is where the real story begins, not ends.
Why the old guard is spending harder
The numbers tell a story of pressure. CPG giants like Coca-Cola, Nike and Procter & Gamble have grown ad spend 36% between 2019 and 2025 against just 29% revenue growth — spending more to stand still. Of six CPG firms studied, only PepsiCo did not raise its ratio.
That is the mathematics of a crowded, attention-scarce market: when organic reach erodes and competition intensifies, holding your position costs progressively more. Advertising is behaving less like growth fuel and more like rent.
PepsiCo's exception is the intriguing footnote. Being the one major CPG player not to raise its ratio could mean sharper efficiency, a shift toward owned channels and retail media, or simply a different accounting of the spend. Either way, it hints that the upward drift is a choice as much as a law of nature.
Why the platforms can spend less
Alphabet and Meta spend less to grow more because their growth engine is structural, not promotional. Network effects, default distribution and advertiser demand do the work that a legacy brand has to buy with media.
It is an uncomfortable mirror. The platforms soaking up CPG budgets don't need much advertising themselves — their product and their position generate the demand. Spending a rising share on ads can be a signal of strength, but it can equally be the symptom of a weak flywheel being propped up by media.
The question every marketer should ask
The lesson is not 'spend less like Google' — few businesses enjoy that structural pull. It is to interrogate why your ad-to-sales ratio is moving. Rising spend that buys share, pricing power or loyalty is investment; rising spend that merely defends a flat position is a tax on a weak model.
The strongest businesses engineer demand that does not depend on ever-increasing media — through product, distribution and brand equity that compounds. If your ratio only climbs, the honest question is whether advertising is fuelling growth or quietly subsidising its absence.
For smaller businesses the signal is practical, not just philosophical. Track your own ad-to-sales ratio over time as a health check: a line creeping upward year after year without matching gains in share or margin is an early warning that you are renting demand you ought to be building. The brands that win treat that number as a diagnostic, not a budget line to defend.
Quick FAQ
What is an ad-to-sales ratio?
It is advertising spend expressed as a percentage of revenue — a measure of how much a company invests in advertising relative to the sales it generates.
What did the WARC report find?
Top consumer-goods marketers raised their ad-to-sales ratio from 11.6% in 2023 to 12.5% in 2025, while Alphabet and Meta cut theirs from 13% in 2019 to 7.4% in 2025 despite 146% combined revenue growth.
Which companies bucked the CPG trend?
Of six consumer-goods firms studied, only PepsiCo did not raise its ad-to-sales ratio.
A rising ad-to-sales ratio can mean two very different things. Either you're spending to buy share and pricing power, or you're spending to stand still because the underlying flywheel is weak. The platforms grew 146% spending less — that's the uncomfortable benchmark every CMO should sit with. — Daniel Nikolla, Founder of Merx Marketing
A climbing ad-to-sales ratio is only healthy if it buys share or pricing power — otherwise it's a tax on a weak model.
If your ad spend doubled, would your growth follow — or are you just paying rent on your position?
If you would like to know more about this topic, please contact us on danieln@merxmarketing.co.uk
Sources: Marketing Dive, WARC
Related reading
Written by Daniel Nikolla, Founder of Merx Marketing Ltd and Marketing Minute
