For the first time, US advertisers committed more upfront money to connected TV than to primetime linear television. That is a genuine milestone, because the upfront exists because of primetime. It is also the most likely fact in marketing right now to be misread as a buying instruction.
What actually happened
EMARKETER forecasts that US connected TV upfront ad spending reaches $17.73 billion in 2026, against $16.98 billion for primetime linear TV. A gap of roughly $750 million on a market worth almost $35 billion combined is not a landslide. It is a crossover, and crossovers only happen once.
The upfront matters here for a reason that is easy to miss. It is the annual market where advertisers commit budget months before a single impression is served, and it was invented for primetime network television. Streaming winning that specific daypart, in that specific market, is the industry conceding where the audience finished moving. EMARKETER's own wording is that CTV is poised to "surpass linear TV in prime-time upfront ad spending for the first time".
The wider number is bigger and less symbolic. Total US CTV ad spend is forecast at roughly $37.95 billion in 2026, growing around 15 percent year over year. Total advertising is growing somewhere in the 6 to 8 percent range. Linear is shrinking. So the money is not being created, it is being moved.
What streaming attention costs
The honest way to evaluate any channel shift is to put the prices next to each other on the same unit. Here is what a thousand impressions costs across the places most advertisers can actually buy today.
| Channel | Average CPM | What you are buying |
|---|---|---|
| Google Display Network | $3.12 | Cheap, skippable, low attention |
| Programmatic open exchange | $5.85 | Remnant inventory, quality varies |
| Private marketplace | $8.20 | Vetted publishers, negotiated |
| Meta, blended | $14 to $15 | Targetable, measurable, crowded |
| FAST channels | $15 to $25 | The cheap end of streaming |
| Connected TV, blended | about $26 | Full screen, unskippable, high completion |
| Premium streaming, programmatic | $25 to $45 | Named services, real shows |
| Premium direct and live sports | $45 to $65 | Appointment viewing, scarce |
| Addressable, first party targeted | $45 to $85 | Your list, on a television screen |
Read the top and the bottom of that table together. Streaming costs roughly eight times display and close to double Meta. That is the price of a full screen with the sound on and no skip button. It can absolutely be worth it. It is never worth it by default, and no upfront milestone changes that arithmetic.
If you want the same treatment applied to search and social specifically, the numbers I keep updated live on the Paid Media Cost Index.
The two curves nobody put on the same chart
Here is the finding that got almost no coverage, and it is the reason this story is worth your time rather than just your attention.
Streaming is getting cheaper. Amazon switched ads on for Prime Video in early 2024 and dumped an enormous amount of new inventory into the market at once. Its CPM fell from around $35 to roughly $28 within a year. That is what supply does to price, and more supply keeps arriving as every service launches an ad tier.
The channels you already live in are getting more expensive. Google Display Network CPMs rose about 7 percent year over year, described in the benchmark data as the steepest CPM inflation since 2021. Private marketplace inventory is forecast to climb another 10 to 14 percent, and the gap between open exchange and PMP pricing has widened more than 60 percent since 2024.
So you have one curve falling and one curve rising, and every trade headline is about the crossover in the upfront rather than the convergence in price. The convergence is the thing that will eventually change what a normal advertiser buys. It has not changed it yet. Roughly $26 against roughly $14 is still close to double, and the cheaper option is the one where you can see which creative drove which conversion.
Who this changes something for
Four situations, and only two of them involve doing anything.
You spend under roughly $15,000 a month on paid media. Nothing changes. Video reach buys need frequency across a large enough audience to register, and at a $26 CPM a small budget buys a number of impressions too thin to move anything. Spend it where intent already exists.
Your search program is capped by demand, not by budget. This is the one case where the news is actionable. If you are already capturing most of the searches that exist for what you sell, more budget in search buys you worse traffic. The constraint has become how many people know the category exists, and that is exactly the problem video reach solves. Before you conclude you are here, check it properly rather than assuming, which is most of what a paid media audit is for.
You sell something considered, high ticket and geographically bounded. Addressable CTV against your own customer list, at $45 to $85 CPM, is defensible when a single closed deal is worth thousands. Run it as a named test with a holdout, not as an always on line item.
You still have lost impression share in search. Buy that first. Every time. A channel where someone has already typed what they want will outperform a channel where you interrupt them, until you have exhausted it. The full comparison of how those two behave is in Google Ads versus Facebook Ads.
What I would do with the next budget cycle
In order, and the order is the whole point.
1. Pull lost impression share due to budget on your search campaigns. If it is above 10 percent, you have unbought demand and this entire article is background reading. Fund that first, because it is the cheapest growth available to you and it needs no new creative, no new vendor and no new measurement approach.
2. If search is genuinely capped, treat CTV as a reach line and measure it like one. Geo holdout or a matched market test. Look at branded search volume, direct traffic and blended cost per acquisition over the test window. Do not accept a view through conversion window as evidence, and be careful with any vendor who offers you one as the headline metric.
3. Start at the FAST tier before the premium tier. At $15 to $25 you can learn whether video moves anything for your category at all, at less than half the cost of finding that out on premium inventory. If it works there, upgrade. If it does nothing there, premium was unlikely to save it.
4. Recheck the CPM spread in three months. Both curves are moving. A decision that is wrong today can be right by the next planning cycle, and the only way to know is to look at the number rather than the headlines.
The upfront crossover is real and it is worth knowing. It is a fact about how large brands allocate committed reach budgets a year in advance. It is not a fact about your cost per lead, and anyone presenting it as one is selling inventory.
Sources
- EMARKETER, CTV Will Surpass Primetime Linear TV in US Upfront Ad Spending in 2026, and CTV crosses a historic threshold at the Upfronts. Upfront and total CTV spend forecasts.
- Adwave, What Is the Average CTV CPM, Q2 2026 pricing data, published July 2026, citing EMARKETER benchmarks. Blended CTV CPM, tier ranges and the Amazon Prime Video price movement.
- Digital Applied, Display Advertising Benchmarks, April 2026, citing WordStream Q1 2026 display benchmarks and Trade Desk aggregated platform data. Display, open exchange, private marketplace and CTV display CPMs, plus year over year inflation.
Forecast figures are forecasts. EMARKETER revises them, and the CPM benchmarks above are market averages that will differ from what your account actually pays. Treat every number here as a starting point for your own measurement, not a substitute for it.
Questions
This is a news piece, which means it is about something that changed. If you want the durable version of how these channels compare and when each one earns its budget, that lives in the Diwizi blog. More recent developments are on the news page.