Video Marketing Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 Video Advertising Statistics for 2026

You cannot evaluate video advertising with one global average. Spending estimates, buying intentions and campaign measurement describe different parts of the market, and each needs a defined geography and denominator.

This collection keeps European market estimates, Australian agency survey findings and US buyer research separate. Use the evidence to frame a specific decision, then check whether the source population and reporting period match the question you need to answer.

Headline figures

  • European combined social and display video ad spending: 2025, €33,960 million. (IAB Europe, Jul 2026)
  • European combined social and display video ad spending: 2025 annual growth, 19.6%. (IAB Europe, Jul 2026)
  • European social video ad spending: 2025, €18,602 million. (IAB Europe, Jul 2026)
  • European non-social video ad spending: 2025 programmatic video, €9,832 million. (IAB Europe, Jul 2026)
  • 2025 video share of digital display spending, excluding social: Slovenia, 89.4%. (IAB Europe, Jul 2026)
  • 2025 video share of digital display spending, excluding social: UK, 48.1%. (IAB Europe, Jul 2026)
  • Top-three programmatic CTV buying expectations: control ad frequency, 50%. (IAB Australia, May 2026)
  • Experience placing ads in live streaming events: core or regular campaign inclusion, 32%. (IAB Australia, May 2026)
  • Tools used to measure video ad effectiveness: digital brand lift surveys, 68%. (IAB Australia, May 2026)
  • Metrics rated important for video campaign evaluation: brand, 80%. (IAB Australia, May 2026)
  • CTV inventory quality confidence: somewhat to no confidence in open exchange/RTB, 67%. (IAB / Advertiser Perceptions / Guideline, Jul 2026)
  • Live video buyer attitudes: live is worth more than other content, 93%. (IAB / Advertiser Perceptions / Guideline, Jul 2026)

How large was European video advertising?

Market size only becomes useful when its boundaries are explicit. Social video, non-social display video and programmatic buying overlap in different ways.

How did combined social and display video spending change?

IAB Europe's harmonized estimates show the combined social and display video market expanding. The latest total and annual change appear in the takeaways, with the prior-year comparison below. These figures use constant report-year euro conversion, which is not the same as removing every country's price inflation. The report provides a separate adjustment for particular inflationary markets, so the headline growth measure should retain its original definition. The combined series also covers advertising expenditure instead of the cost of making videos. Production fees, owned-channel publishing and creator income cannot simply be added to this advertising total. For a planning decision, establish whether the relevant inventory belongs to social or non-social display before comparing it with a regional market estimate.

What did the social video component contribute?

The social video component is reported separately in IAB Europe's original market analysis. Its latest spending estimate appears in the takeaways, while the earlier value and annual growth are below. The component is already included in the combined market total. Adding it again would double count expenditure and inflate the apparent opportunity. Platform classifications and national inputs also require harmonization, so these figures are estimates produced under the report's common framework instead of a direct census of every transaction. They can describe the direction of a defined market, but cannot establish the return a particular advertiser received. A larger category may reflect more inventory, higher prices, changing formats or a combination of factors; this report does not isolate those mechanisms.

How did non-social and programmatic video differ?

  • 2024 display video, €13,586 million. (IAB Europe, Jul 2026)
  • 2025 display video, €15,358 million. (IAB Europe, Jul 2026)

Non-social display video is a format category, while programmatic describes a buying method. The programmatic value showed in the takeaways is therefore a subset, not another market to add to display video. IAB Europe removes social advertising from this programmatic series and adjusts broader national definitions to improve comparability. Those methodological choices matter when comparing the figures with local reports that include walled-garden automation or use different definitions of display. The spending estimates below are monetary values, not impressions, audience reach or advertiser adoption. They do not imply that every campaign can access the same inventory. Before quoting them in a proposal, retain the geography, reporting year, currency basis and exclusion of social so that readers can identify the market actually being measured.

How did video's display share vary across Europe?

Country shares describe the composition of display spending, not the size of each national market. A high share can occur in a small market, and modelled estimates deserve explicit labels.

Which markets had the highest reported video shares?

IAB Europe's chart ranks national video shares within non-social digital display advertising. Selected country results appear in the takeaways; the remaining upper group is listed below. Greece and Bulgaria are fully modelled in the report's methodology instead of based on national submissions. Other markets also undergo harmonization. The figures should therefore be described as the report's estimates, not as perfectly comparable administrative totals.

What did the middle group of country estimates show?

The middle group uses the same non-social display denominator as the rest of the chart. Belgium and Portugal are fully modelled, and the UK result in the takeaways reflects the report's harmonized treatment. A country's position does not rank campaign effectiveness, consumer interest or growth. It describes how a particular spending category is divided under this study's definitions. Keep that distinction when comparing national opportunities.

What did the lower-share group measure?

The remaining markets have a smaller estimated video share of non-social display spending. Romania is fully modelled; the other estimates still follow the report's harmonization framework. Lower shares do not demonstrate weak video audiences or low campaign returns. They may reflect the composition and measurement of the advertising market. The original chart contains inconsistent aggregate Europe labels; both aggregate bars are excluded here. Country values remain individually traceable to the chart.

What did Australian agencies expect from video buying?

Buying expectations reveal the job an agency wants a channel to perform. They should not be mistaken for verified improvements in campaign performance.

What mattered in programmatic CTV purchases?

IAB Australia asked agency decision makers to select their leading expectations when buying CTV or OTT inventory programmatically. Frequency control appears in the takeaways; other selected expectations follow. These are preferences, not measured benefits delivered by a platform. Multiple selections mean the response shares do not form an exclusive distribution. The survey cannot establish which buying method would best serve an individual campaign.

How much experience did agencies have with live events?

The Australian survey distinguishes consideration, research, testing and regular inclusion of ads in live streaming events. The regular-use result appears in the takeaways, with the other stages below. Experience is not a spending share. An agency may have tested a placement without making it a routine part of campaigns, and regular use does not reveal how much money it allocated. The categories also do not establish a causal link between live content and commercial outcomes. A hands-on evaluation should specify the event, audience, ad position, available measurement and the cost of incremental reach. Keep these Australian agency responses separate from the US buyer attitudes later in the article: the studies ask different questions of different populations.

How did agencies use video creators and talent?

IAB Australia reports distinct stages of agency experience with video creators and talent. The categories below concern video, excluding the separate podcast findings shown alongside them in the report. The displayed percentages are rounded and do not sum perfectly to a complete whole. They should remain as published instead of being adjusted to create a more convenient total. Experience with a creator also says little about the contractual arrangement, production workload or subsequent media distribution. Some partnerships may involve content creation, while others combine talent, publishing and paid amplification. The survey does not price those activities or measure their returns. Use these findings to describe adoption stages, then assess the requirements of the specific partnership being considered.

How did Australian agencies evaluate video campaigns?

Measurement popularity does not prove measurement quality. The useful question is whether a method can answer the campaign's actual decision problem.

Which measurement tools were in use?

IAB Australia records tools used by agencies and their clients to assess video advertising effectiveness. Brand-lift usage appears in the takeaways; other tools are listed below. Respondents could use several approaches. Reporting impressions, estimating incremental brand effects and modelling sales contributions answer different questions. Their response shares should not be combined into a single measure of measurement maturity or treated as competing estimates of the same outcome.

Which campaign metrics were considered important?

The survey separately asks which metrics matter when evaluating video campaigns. The brand-metric result is in the takeaways, while the other categories below preserve the source's labels. Importance is not the same as actual usage or reliable implementation. A metric can be valued even when collection is difficult, and a commonly available measure can still be poorly suited to the decision. Compare these priorities with the campaign objective before deciding which reporting framework to use. The findings also do not establish that a sales measure is superior for every campaign or that attention guarantees a later purchase. Each requires an explicit definition and an appropriate observation window.

Which retail-video opportunities were regularly used?

The retail-video chart distinguishes regular use from research or testing, openness to future use and low interest. Only regular use is reported below for the selected opportunities. This distinction prevents an inflated adoption claim that combines active deployment with exploration. Retailer audience data, commerce integrations and creator product placements also represent different capabilities instead of interchangeable formats. A campaign can use several together, so the figures are not an exclusive allocation of investment. The survey does not establish whether the underlying data produced incremental sales or whether a commerce interaction completed a purchase. Evaluate those outcomes using the relevant implementation and measurement evidence, while retaining the Australian agency sample as the population behind these descriptive findings.

What did US buyers report about growth, trust and AI?

A growing market can still face quality doubts. The US research separates expected spending from buyer confidence and records AI attitudes at the time of its summer release.

How did growth expectations compare with inventory confidence?

The US original release reports projected spending growth alongside buyer confidence in CTV inventory. Open-exchange confidence is showed in the takeaways; the other findings follow. The confidence wording includes a range from somewhat confident to no confidence. It must not be shortened to a claim that every respondent distrusted the inventory entirely. The smaller-business targeting change is expressed in percentage points, not as a relative percentage increase. These figures describe different questions and cannot be combined into one index of market health.

What did buyers want from live video and agentic AI?

US buyers valued live content while asking for evidence and controls. The live-premium result appears in the takeaways. These are July findings, not a claim about November adoption. Agreement that an agent has a role does not mean it has been deployed. The preferences can overlap. The skeptical group retains its approximate source wording.

How was generative AI used or expected to be used?

The US release distinguishes buyers using generative AI from the share of advertising assets using it. It also separates prior-year findings from current-year expectations and a later forecast. Those denominators are not interchangeable: many buyers can experiment with a tool while only a portion of their assets incorporates it. Approximate fractions retain the source's wording. Smaller buyers' dissatisfaction concerns usage levels, not necessarily output quality. These summer findings are historical; the forecast remains an expectation.

Glossary

Methodology and sources

Every figure on this page comes from the organisation that produced it: regulators, statistics offices, public bodies, research institutes, and companies reporting their own data or surveys. Each one links to the original report or dataset and carries its release date. Survey results keep their population and fieldwork period, and financial figures keep the measure the producer used. Figures from different producers are not added together or ranked against each other. The page is reviewed monthly and updated when a producer releases newer data.