Commentary

Soda Brands 71% More Effective On Streamers Vs. Linear TV, Led By Dr Pepper, Poppi

by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, June 4, 2025

Soda brands on streaming TV platforms were found to be 71% more effective than their media campaigns running on linear TV in the first quarter of 2025, according to EDO Ad EnGage.

When looking at all streaming and linear TV campaigns, Dr Pepper was nearly two times more effective, in terms of engagement metrics (198%), than the average soda TV advertiser. Newcomer Poppi was 54% as effective, with Pepsi 16% over the average.

Looking just at individual brands' streaming campaigns, Dr Pepper also led in this category: it was 181% more effective. Pepsi was a close second, at 179% more effective.

Specific brands had differing performance levels per streaming platform: Coca-Cola, the market leader, posted 20% more effective results on Tubi than its overall average for its campaign on other platforms. Mountain Dew was 6% higher on YouTube, Jarritos was highest at 129% on Peacock, and Olipop was more effective on Pluto TV.

During the first quarter, Coca-Cola had a 25.9% "share of voice," followed by Mountain Dew at 25.2%; Pepsi with 15.8%; Poppi at 11.1%; Diet Coke at 10.1%; Dr Pepper with 6.54%, and others at 5.4%.

Overall, the most effective dayparts for soda brands were early-fringe: 33% more effective than other dayparts. Prime time and afternoon daytime were 4% more effective, while morning daytime was 2% more effective.

EDO says the most engaged demographics were females ages 18-34 and males 55-plus for soda advertising.

The best markets for soda brand engagement are Raleigh-Durham (+31%); Orlando-Daytona (+27%); and Cleveland (+23%).

The least effective markets are Seattle-Tacoma (-18%), New York (-15%), and Washington, D.C. (-14%).

campaigns, carbonated beverages, engagement, linear tv, marketing, media measurement, metrics, streaming, television

5 comments about "Soda Brands 71% More Effective On Streamers Vs. Linear TV, Led By Dr Pepper, Poppi".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, June 4, 2025 at 10:42 a.m.
Wayne, without a definition of what constitutes "effectiveness" it's impossible to draw any conclusions from this info. If they are measuring ad impact or exposure--or something else aside from share of GRPs,we need to know that. If its an indication of ad impact--consumers being motivated to buy the brand--I would be very surprised to see the differences you indicate provided that the same demos are involved for each media type.
Reply

M Cohen from marshall cohen associates, June 4, 2025 at 2:32 p.m.

Agree with "Master," Ed.
At the very least, when you Wayne use the term "effective" in your headline. you should have one sentence, or one footnote, that says how they operationally defive "effective." Is it a) went immediately to the brand's website? b) scored more likely to buy on a convenience survey/poll? c) mentioned the brand in a recent social post? d) scored higher than a "control" groupl sample did? You see Wayne, there are many ways one could make this claim of effectiveness. All Ed and I would hope for is that researchers and then you, the press are transparent so that we can understand exaxtly what this means.

Karen McCallum from KRQE-TV replied, June 4, 2025 at 2:42 p.m.

Ed nailed it. Thanks, Ed.

Lauren Ridgley from Left Hand Agency, LLC, June 4, 2025 at 5:50 p.m.

Have to agree with Ed Papazian - there is little to no definition of what engagement means and how it translates to sales. Effective is a nebulous term that needs more elaboration here. Even on the EDO site there isn't a great explanation of this methodology or parameters.

Ben B from Retired replied, June 4, 2025 at 10:38 p.m.

I agree with Ed he should write for MP for his info on media and the numbers as he knows his stuff.