TV, radio and digital in Peru’s 2026 electoral media plan: how is the budget allocated?

Was spending following the audience?

The original public electoral media plan for Peru’s 2026 Regional and Municipal Elections allocates 59.6% of its budget to television, 26.5% to radio and 13.9% to digital media. The Digital News Report finds that 69% of its Peruvian sample uses social media for news. At first glance, the comparison suggests that TV receives more money while many people look for news on social media.

Was that allocation reasonable? I examined spending by constituency, audiences using each medium and ONPE’s stated reasons. These sources help explain the plan. Establishing whether the advertisements informed voters requires other data.

Sources: ONPE · DNR

Metropolitan Lima changes television’s share

The table in the plan approved in August totals S/30,914,972.89 across 26 constituencies. It covers indirect public campaign funding through the electoral media scheme, rather than all campaign advertising. Scheduled broadcasts run from 9 September to 1 October.

The table describes its figures as a budget executed within the plan, although the document was approved before broadcasting. I analyse them as the original planned budget, without certifying final payments. September’s amendment is excluded: incorporating it would require identifying which items it replaces and which it adds.

Metropolitan Lima accounts for 51.5% of the original budget and allocates 77.0% of its own budget to TV. Across the other 25 constituencies combined, radio receives 46.3% and TV 41.1%. The national 59.6% combines these two allocations; it does not describe every territory’s priority.

The other 25 include Callao and Lima Provincias, rather than a rural population category. The plan also acknowledges that a purchase recorded in Lima can use a signal with national coverage. The budget’s accounting location does not establish where the people receiving the message were located.

Sources: ONPE · ONPE-M

Social news use is not exposure to electoral advertising

Reuters records weekly social news use of 69% and TV news use of 49% in an online sample of 2,022 respondents in Peru. Main fieldwork ran from mid-January to late February 2026. The same respondent can use both media.

The 69% counts people who report using social media for news; the 59.6% allocates money. Their difference does not measure whether too much was spent on TV. Dividing one by the other does not estimate efficiency either: the measures have different bases.

The online survey provides information about connected people. It does not measure how many voters saw this scheme’s advertisements or describe the entire electorate on its own. Social media use warrants examining that audience, but does not determine how much funding each medium should receive.

Sources: DNR · DNR-M

Age and place change media use

ONPE cites CPI’s media ecosystem study. Its public January 2026 report records broad weekly use across all three channels. In Metropolitan Lima: digital 95.6%, total television 89.9% and radio 89.5%. In the urban interior: digital 83.7%, television 86.1% and radio 93.1%.

In the urban interior, weekly digital use reaches 96.2% among ages 26–37. Among ages 51–99 it falls to 60.9%; radio records 95.0% and TV 84.1% in that same group. Among ages 51–99 in Metropolitan Lima, digital records 89.9%. Planning by age alone would miss this territorial difference.

These figures show that TV and radio retain broad audiences and digital use differs by segment. They do not identify who received electoral advertisements: someone can use a medium without encountering the campaign.

The study covers urban areas. The full report includes people from age 11 and combines ages 17–25, mixing minors and adults. The interactive charts use entirely adult bands: 26–37, 38–50 and 51–99. They do not represent all voters. The public summary lacks enough information to calculate margins of error or statistical significance here.

Sources: CPI · ONPE

ONPE’s reasons for allocating more to TV in Lima

The plan considers authorised suppliers, coverage, ratings or followers, prices and availability. In Metropolitan Lima it explains TV’s larger allocation through mass coverage, higher prices and July 2026 audience measurements. In Callao it reports limited supply that makes indicative shares difficult to follow strictly.

The budget reflects the reference audience, prices and available suppliers. A higher price can increase a medium’s share of spending without increasing the number of people reached in the same proportion.

When assessing those purchases, a rating and a follower count are not interchangeable. Followers do not establish that everyone saw the advertisement, belongs to the constituency or is eligible to vote. Using a medium does not guarantee exposure to a purchased slot.

Definitions matter too. CONCORTV’s 2025 study includes all audiovisual content in television consumption and all audio content in radio consumption. Its reported hours should not automatically be interpreted as traditional TV or terrestrial radio hours.

Sources: ONPE · CONCORTV

How many new people each channel adds

One way to compare channels is to calculate which people in the target audience each adds to those already reached. This additional reach distinguishes an expanded audience from repeated contact.

If someone watches TV and uses social media, adding both audiences counts that person twice. A channel can reach many people and repeat much of an audience already covered. Another can have fewer users and reach people the other options do not.

Consider a fictional example: TV reaches 100 people, digital reaches 80 and 50 are in both groups. Together they reach 130 different people: 100 + 80 − 50. Adding digital to TV introduces 30 new people. Change the simulator’s figures to see how shared audiences affect the calculation. These are not electoral media data.

Evaluating the scheme would require exposure by territory, frequency, the costs of alternatives and knowledge or recall of proposals. Attributing a change in vote choice would also require a design that separates advertising effects from other influences. Election results alone cannot do this.

What the allocation tells us

ASSESSING THE INVESTMENT

There are reasons for the allocation. Assessing effectiveness requires exposure and understanding data.

1. People reached
2. Understanding
3. Comparable cost

The original budget has different territorial priorities. TV receives most of Metropolitan Lima’s allocation, which accounts for over half the total; across the other 25 constituencies combined, radio receives more than TV. Reading the national 59.6% alone misses that difference.

There are documented reasons to retain TV and radio: CPI records broad audiences and ONPE explains coverage, prices and availability. Digital also has substantial audiences, but its use varies by age and place. These findings help explain the allocation; they do not prove it was the most effective.

The sources reviewed cannot establish how much better voters would have been informed if funding had moved from TV to digital. We need to know who received each advertisement, who was reached through more than one medium and what people understood about the proposals. The investment’s outcome remains an open question.

For a business, this case helps examine a common decision: spending according to the most popular medium. Define the audience and required outcome first; then compare the new people each option adds and the cost of reaching the same audience. If the aim is to explain a proposal, assess understanding too. This procedure is transferable; electoral percentages are not a budget recipe for a business.