In the modern marketing suite, media directors operate with surgical precision. They can calculate a brand’s Share of Voice (SOV) down to the decimal point, track its movement against Share of Market (SOM), and provide data-backed forecasts for the next four quarters. It is a world of rigorous, adult conversations where every dollar is accounted for and every impression is measured.
Yet, there is a glaring, expensive, and largely ignored hole in this otherwise meticulous planning. Spend ten minutes asking those same professionals about the music and audio identity underpinning those campaigns, and the rigor evaporates. Briefs become vague, reliance on "gut feeling" replaces data, and creative directors sign off on tracks simply because they "felt right in the room."
This dissonance—treating SOV as a hard-science planning lever while treating audio as a subjective, last-minute decoration—is one of the most significant, quiet, and costly failures in modern brand production.
The Legacy of Share of Voice: What We Measured and What We Missed
The bedrock of contemporary marketing strategy rests on the work of John Philip Jones (1990) and the subsequent, definitive analyses by Les Binet and Peter Field. Their research established the "Excess Share of Voice" (ESOV) principle: brands that maintain an SOV higher than their market share (SOM) are statistically more likely to grow. The industry shorthand—half a point of growth for every ten points of positive ESOV—has become the gold standard for defending marketing budgets in boardrooms worldwide.
This framework successfully turned creative quality into a quantified efficiency lever. However, it left a massive blind spot. The "voice" in "Share of Voice"—the actual auditory experience a consumer has when they encounter a brand on TikTok, television, or a podcast—remains untethered from this framework.
While visual identity (logos, palettes, typography) is meticulously guarded to ensure compounding recognition, audio is left to drift. A single brand might utilize acoustic folk in one campaign, synthetic textures in another, and generic library cues in a third. These choices may be "nice" in isolation, but collectively, they fail to form a coherent sonic fingerprint. The brand pays for the media spend, but the compounding effect—the psychological "stickiness" that builds brand equity—leaks out through the speakers.
The Chronology of the Audio Disconnect
Historically, the industry’s approach to sound can be categorized into three distinct eras:
- The Incidental Era (Pre-2010s): Audio was treated as an afterthought. Music was either stock production music or licensed hits, chosen solely to fit the "mood" of a specific 30-second spot.
- The Sonic Branding Infancy (2010–2020): Brands began experimenting with "sonic logos"—short, branded audio signatures. However, these were often treated as standalone assets, not integrated into the broader media ecosystem.
- The "Sound-On" Era (2020–Present): With the rise of short-form video and podcasting, audio has moved to the forefront of consumer experience. Data from platforms like Spotify indicates that 92% of consumers pause other activities to engage with audio, and 87% mute videos to listen to audio-first content. Despite this, the governance of brand sound has failed to catch up to the consumption of it.
Supporting Data: Why the Medium Demands More
The argument for audio investment is no longer a creative plea; it is an economic imperative. According to the 2026 Spotify "Sound-On Era" report, consumers are 36% more likely to trust advertisements containing music or podcast elements compared to traditional social media ads.
Furthermore, LinkedIn’s marketing effectiveness research, led by Hilary Batsel, has revealed that audio consistently delivers 4 to 8 times the ROI on incremental revenue compared to traditional visual-only formats.
These figures confirm that the medium is working. The problem is that the "message" inside the medium—the brand’s sonic identity—is not being optimized. When a brand spends millions on reach but fails to provide a consistent sonic signature, it is effectively buying high-cost impressions for a brand identity that the consumer cannot mentally link across different touchpoints.
The Concept of mDNA: Moving Beyond Instinct
To fix this, industry experts are advocating for the development of "mDNA"—a musical DNA for brands. This is not about forcing every advertisement to sound identical; it is about establishing a set of parameters that dictate how a brand sounds in operational terms.
Key Components of an mDNA Framework
- Tempo and Key: Defining the pacing and harmonic nature that aligns with brand values.
- Instrumentation: Selecting a "palette" of sounds that are distinctly "yours."
- Emotional Valence: Scoring tracks based on psychological models of arousal and affect.
- Genre Adjacency: Setting boundaries for which musical styles are "on-brand" and which are prohibited.
By shifting from "reference tracks" (which lead to derivative, copycat work) to "parameter sets," brands can ensure that their audio remains consistent across thirty different global markets without sounding repetitive.
Official Perspectives: The CMO’s Challenge
Tammy Henault, former CMO at the NBA, Paramount+, and the New York Times, has been a vocal proponent of this shift. Her stance is clear: "Brands need to stop thinking about audio as a bolt-on, and start thinking about it as a foundational element to their plan."
The friction usually occurs at the management level. Agency teams, under pressure to deliver high-quality creative quickly, often view a formal "sonic brief" as a hurdle. However, those who have adopted an mDNA approach report the opposite. It kills "taste arbitration"—the long, expensive, and subjective meetings where stakeholders argue over which track "feels right." Instead, the conversation becomes data-driven: "Does this track align with our defined sonic parameters?"
Implications: The Path to Structural Change
For CMOs and marketing directors, the path forward requires two critical operational shifts:
1. Moving the Music Brief Upstream
Currently, music is often the last item on the checklist, briefed only after the video edit is locked. This relegates music to a "finishing" role. By bringing the sonic brief into the pre-production phase—alongside the script and the storyboard—music becomes a structural element of the campaign’s emotional architecture.
2. Building a Sonic Feedback Loop
Most brands never audit the efficacy of their sound. To gain a competitive advantage, brands must score their music against the same KPIs used for other media: recall, attribution, and brand-linked memory. Over time, these data points evolve from simple metrics into a powerful, proprietary asset.
Conclusion: The Economic Imperative
The asymmetry between how brands plan their visual identity and how they plan their sound is an unsustainable relic of an earlier era. We have moved into a "Sound-On" world, yet our decision-making architecture remains "Sound-Off."
Closing the gap between ESOV planning and sonic governance does not require a new department or an massive increase in budget. It requires the application of the same standard of evidence to audio that we already apply to media planning.
When a brand treats sound as a foundational pillar rather than a creative garnish, it stops leaking equity. It creates a "brand fingerprint" that is immediately recognizable, emotionally resonant, and mathematically defensible. In a saturated media landscape, that is not just a creative advantage—it is the ultimate efficiency. The work is slow, it is structural, and it is the next frontier of brand growth. It is time to stop guessing and start listening.
About the Author
