The report analyzes spending patterns among six major consumer goods companies from 2019 to 2025 and finds that all but PepsiCo increased their advertising-to-sales ratios. Collective advertising spend among the consumer goods companies rose 36%, while revenue rose 29%; the ratio increased from 11.6% in 2023 to 12.5% last year. Technology companies moved in the opposite direction, from 13% to 7.4%, while combined revenue grew substantially. These are findings from a sample of large U.S. companies, not a direct forecast for Taiwan.

The higher budgets reflect softer demand, price-sensitive shoppers and a desire to protect market share; retail media also moves some spending previously classified as shopper or trade investment into advertising. As a result, “spending more” can represent both defensive investment and a change in budget classification. Businesses that look only at media spend may mistake channel reallocation for proven demand.

Millennium editorial analysis finds that the most useful lesson is not the 12.5% ratio itself, but that growth-led advertising and demand-defense advertising require different tests. Technology platforms own attention and can capture demand inside their own environments; consumer brands generally pay to access attention and use retail media to shorten the path from exposure to choice. Their cost structures differ, so the technology sector’s lower ratio should not be read as a reason for every brand to cut advertising.

Likewise, a higher ratio among consumer goods companies does not prove that advertising works. Hypothetically, if a Taiwanese food brand facing weaker sales shifts budget into retail media but does not improve product-page information, availability or repeat purchase, the investment remains an expensive defense. A more disciplined approach is to define which category and buying situation the investment is meant to protect, then use incremental tests to separate captured demand, shifted demand and demand that never existed.

This is also the report’s warning for agencies and enterprise buyers: exposure, clicks or platform-reported conversions do not automatically equal incremental revenue. Millennium editorial analysis views the advertising ratio as a resource-pressure indicator, not proof of success; decisions should rest on traceable demand recovery and channel efficiency.

Millennium's view：Millennium editorial judgment: Taiwanese businesses should not copy the higher advertising-to-sales ratios of large consumer brands. They should treat the ratio as a warning about demand pressure and channel investment, then use controlled tests to prove which customer behavior additional spending changes. The reason is that the report shows two different economics: technology platforms can own attention, while consumer brands generally buy access to it; retail media may also reclassify spending that was previously treated as shopper or trade investment. A ratio alone therefore cannot establish efficiency. Only by linking advertising purpose with availability, incremental behavior and repeat purchase can a business tell whether spending is defending demand or masking a product or channel problem.

First, create a “purpose–channel–outcome” map that separates brand memory, category consideration, product-page interaction and purchase; do not place every retail media dollar under one performance metric. Second, run a small incremental test across a controllable category, location or period, with a reasonable comparison condition, and observe whether added exposure produces behavior beyond normal variation. These are proposed management methods, not proven results in Taiwan.

Third, review advertising alongside availability, price information and the repeat-purchase path. Hypothetically, if a beauty brand sees more retail-media clicks but no change in purchases, the next move should not be an immediate budget increase. It should check product-page content, inventory, promotion terms and audience consistency. If a business cannot explain which customer behavior each additional dollar is intended to change, it should narrow the test rather than follow the market’s spending narrative.

For Taiwanese businesses, the report’s practical value is a reminder that advertising economics differ by industry. Large consumer brands may need investment to defend share, while smaller businesses should confirm that each channel touchpoint removes purchase friction. The sustainable question is not “how much will we spend this year?” but “does the next dollar bring identifiable demand closer to purchase and repeat purchase?”

Suggested action 1：Separate current advertising budgets into brand memory, category consideration, product-page interaction and purchase, assigning one primary outcome to each stage instead of using one click or exposure metric for the entire path. Review monthly whether every budget item has a purpose, metric and data source; classify unassigned spending as unvalidated and track its share over time.

Suggested action 2：Run a limited-period incremental retail-media test for one category, retaining comparable geographic, store or audience conditions rather than relying only on platform attribution. Compare product-page actions, purchases or repeat purchases between test and comparison conditions, documenting decision thresholds and stop conditions before launch.

Suggested action 3：Review product-page information, inventory, price communication and repeat-purchase flow alongside advertising; if clicks rise while purchases do not, diagnose friction before adding budget. Record weekly drop-off rates from ad exposure to product page, add-to-cart, purchase and repeat purchase, noting completed fixes and subsequent changes.