In a masterclass of déjà vu, both AdExchanger and Digiday unleashed a “scoop” yesterday announcing that the IAB and MRC are collaborating on attention measurement accreditation.
Slow clap.
We had Angelina Eng on our show weeks ago spilling the same beans. But hey, if you don’t watch the hottest show in adtech, that’s on you, not me. Eng gave us a front-row seat to the coming circus of guidelines the IAB is rolling out, breaking attention into bite-sized pieces: visual/audio tracking, neurological observations, data signals, and good old-fashioned surveys. Spoiler: We’ve got one part of this puzzle already, but the rest? Well, you’ll have to sit tight until the first quarter of 2025. Talk about the attention economy needing patience!
You’ve read all the bs, now let’s get into the details folks.
The Attention Rabbit Hole
The IAB’s master plan is like trying to get everyone at a family reunion to agree on one pizza topping—it’s ambitious, a bit unrealistic, and fraught with the potential for drama. Their idea is to craft a sparkling new framework that forces everyone—from media buyers to ad tech vendors—to speak the same language when it comes to measuring attention. Enter the buzzwords: visual and audio tracking, neuro-something-or-others, and data proxy signals. These are the magic beans that the IAB believes will grow into a beanstalk of industry-wide consensus. But let’s be honest; this is less about achieving clarity and more about covering up the fact that we’ve been playing an elaborate game of “pin the metric on the donkey” for years. The old impression-based model is starting to feel like a relic from the Stone Age, and everyone is scrambling to redefine relevance.
At the heart of the IAB’s vision is the hope—no, the prayer—that by next year, everyone will finally sing from the same hymn sheet, er, scroll. But that’s a tall order in an industry that thrives on buzzwords and vague promises. The challenge here is monumental. Herding the scattered tribes of advertisers, publishers, platforms, and vendors into a unified front on what attention really means is akin to getting a group of caffeinated toddlers to walk in a straight line. You’ve got factions defending their turf, vested interests, and different interpretations of what “good” looks like. Each party has its own version of what attention measurement should prioritize—be it viewability, engagement time, or neurological responses—turning any effort at standardization into a diplomatic nightmare.
And even if, by some miracle, the IAB manages to draft a set of guidelines that doesn’t immediately implode under the weight of its own contradictions, getting universal buy-in is another story. Think of the ad industry as a rebellious teenager—always pushing boundaries, never satisfied with the status quo, and constantly inventing new ways to dodge the rules. Just when you think you’ve pinned them down, they slip out of your grasp, invent a new acronym, or find a loophole to exploit. So, while the IAB dreams of a future where attention metrics are universally understood and applied, the rest of us are bracing for yet another round of chaos and confusion.
Let’s dive into the four attention commandments:
Visual/Audio Tracking: Think “Black Mirror,” but for your eyeballs and eardrums. From eye tracking to facial coding, these methods hope to capture where your gaze lingers and what your ears endure. It’s all very Big Brother, but in the name of engagement, right?
Physiological/Neurological Observations: Want to know what your heart rate thinks of that new Pepsi ad? This one’s for you. Heart rate, brain waves, and maybe even a soul scan—because nothing says “effective marketing” like a mild stroke.
Data Signals: This one reads like an NSA manual. The idea is to grab every signal your device emits like it’s the Fourth of July and weave it into some semblance of attention scoring. It’s like tracking Santa’s sleigh, but with less magic and more metadata.
Survey-Based Methods: The old-school way. Ask people how much they loved or loathed that detergent ad. Nothing like self-reported data to put the “con” in consumer insights.
The MRC Gets Into the Game – Or Just Stands There
The Media Rating Council (MRC), self-appointed guardian of what counts as a “viewable” ad, has now dipped its toes into the murky waters of attention metrics. They’ve come to terms with the fact that attention isn’t just a passing fad but might actually mean something. So, in their typical bureaucratic fashion, they’ve declared that attention measures must tick a few boxes: ads need to be seen (viewability), not clicked by bots or accidental thumbs (invalid traffic filtration), and must have a real-life human present (user presence). But audibility? Meh, that’s an optional extra—unless you’re in the business of selling audio ads to the hearing-impaired. Because, you know, context is key.
And now, they’re all about these new-fangled data signal proxies. Think of them as the latest elixir on the digital marketing shelf. Everyone’s mixing them up in hopes they can create a perfect cocktail—where each ad impression is not only “seen” but felt deep in the soul (or at least in the wallet). It’s all about blending these signals like a pro bartender crafting the ultimate concoction. But in reality? Picture someone waving their hands frantically at a magic show, desperately hoping for a rabbit to appear out of the hat.
But let’s get down to brass tacks: the MRC’s new love affair with data proxies is really just a new chapter in the long book of digital ad metrics. These proxies, they say, will combine diverse data points—like a mixologist who adds a dash of eye-tracking, a hint of mouse movement, and maybe a splash of device orientation—to tell us whether a consumer was really “paying attention.” But here’s the twist: while this may sound like some groundbreaking, data-driven magic, it’s often just more theater. Everyone’s nodding along, but no one’s quite sure if the emperor has clothes on.
Meanwhile, the industry is left to ponder if these proxies are truly the new gold rush or just another fool’s errand. Proponents argue they offer a way to cut through the noise, a new beacon in the fog of digital ads. But detractors suggest it’s more like panning for gold in a dried-up riverbed. Sure, the shimmer of possibility is there, but dig deep, and all you might find are a few shiny rocks masquerading as precious nuggets.
The real kicker is that, even if these proxies could work magic, we still have to agree on what “attention” really means. Is it a gaze that lingers for 2.5 seconds longer than the average? A double-tap on an Instagram post at 3 AM when the consumer’s half asleep? The MRC, in all its wisdom, is trying to draw a line in the sand, but when the entire landscape is shifting like quicksand, that’s a tall order. For every guideline, there’s a counterpoint, and for every standard, a dozen exceptions.
But Wait, Are Attention Metrics the New Snake Oil?
Last year, the advertising world saw a stampede of marketers leaping onto the attention metrics train like a bunch of kids chasing the ice cream truck on a hot summer day. Audi, Coca-Cola, the NBA—all of them decided that simply counting eyeballs wasn’t enough anymore. They’re done with the old days of indiscriminately casting a wide net; now, they want to know precisely how long those eyeballs linger and whether they’re twinkling with interest or glazing over like yesterday’s donuts. In the race for ROI, they’ve decided that “attention” is the secret sauce, the golden fleece, the unicorn that will magically turn their ad dollars into sales gold.
But not everyone is buying a ticket for this ride. Enter Professor Byron Sharp, who’s become the advertising industry’s version of the Grinch who stole Christmas. Sharp stands at his soapbox, waving his arms like an air traffic controller in a storm, shouting that the whole attention metrics frenzy is nothing more than a carnival sideshow. His argument? Counting the seconds someone accidentally stares at an ad because they were too lazy to click “skip” doesn’t amount to effective marketing. Sharp, along with his colleagues, claims that chasing attention is like hunting a mythical dragon—one that might breathe a lot of hype, but not a lot of fire.
Sharp’s skepticism cuts deep into the heart of the attention metrics movement. He points out that more attention doesn’t automatically mean more sales, more brand love, or any substantial value beyond an empty marketing budget. He’s not alone, either. A growing cadre of critics echoes his doubts, arguing that while attention metrics might sound like the Holy Grail, they could just as easily be another false idol. They argue that advertisers are throwing good money after bad, hoping to catch lightning in a bottle by optimizing for fleeting glances and momentary awareness that, in reality, might not be worth the pixels they’re printed on.
Sharp’s critique is more than just a curmudgeonly rant against the latest trend. It’s a call for sanity in an industry that often leaps from one shiny new object to another like a hyperactive squirrel on an espresso drip. He suggests that the obsession with attention metrics could lead to creative and strategic shortcuts, where marketers focus more on capturing attention than delivering meaningful content. After all, what good is an ad that grabs your attention for a few seconds if it doesn’t leave any lasting impact? Sharp warns that by overvaluing attention, we risk turning advertising into a game of “gotcha,” where the only winners are the platforms raking in the ad dollars.
But the debate doesn’t end there. Sharp’s opponents argue that he’s missing the forest for the trees. Attention, they say, is not just about the quantity of seconds but the quality of engagement. Even a fleeting moment, they claim, can plant the seed of brand recall, influencing purchase decisions down the line. To them, the real question isn’t whether attention matters, but how to capture and hold it in ways that are genuinely valuable. They see attention metrics not as a fad, but as a necessary evolution in how we understand and measure advertising effectiveness.
Still, Sharp’s supporters contend that the industry’s fixation on attention metrics is like chasing shadows—there’s just not enough substance to justify the hype. They argue that while some attention is necessary (after all, you can’t sell to people who aren’t paying attention), obsessing over how much attention you get is a bit like worrying about how many likes your cat photos get on Instagram. Sure, it’s nice, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything important is happening. Instead, they urge a return to fundamentals: build great brands, create compelling content, and let attention follow naturally, rather than bending over backward to manufacture it.
Attention Fans Speak Up
Karen Nelson-Field and Mike Follett are leading a full-scale charge in the debate over attention metrics, positioning attention not just as another industry buzzword but as the foundational metric that should guide all advertising decisions. Nelson-Field, through her work at Amplified Intelligence, argues that attention is the “Holy Grail” of advertising—an essential link between the mere exposure of an ad and genuine engagement from the audience. Her approach is backed by rigorous, independent studies conducted across six countries, demonstrating that attention is not only measurable but also directly linked to advertising effectiveness, brand growth, and customer retention. Essentially, she believes that if you’re not measuring attention, you’re flying blind in a storm, and no amount of traditional metrics like impressions or clicks will give you the true picture of an ad’s impact.
Backing her up, Mike Follett of Lumen Research has also been on the offensive, presenting data that shows how attention metrics outperform traditional measurements in predicting campaign outcomes. According to Follett, while old-school metrics might tell you how many people could have seen your ad, attention metrics tell you who actually did see it and for how long. This, he contends, is crucial information that translates directly into real-world results. His studies suggest that ads which capture higher levels of attention are more likely to be remembered, which in turn increases the likelihood of purchase—a metric every marketer dreams of improving.
Joining the fray is Mark Ritson, the self-styled provocateur of marketing academia, who has been banging the drum for attention metrics as the definitive measure of success. Ritson argues that “dwell time,” or the length of time a viewer spends with an ad, is not just another metric but the metric that indicates the true effectiveness of an ad. According to Ritson, attention creates salience; salience drives preference, and preference impacts the bottom line. He’s pushing the notion that the more time a consumer spends with an ad, the more likely they are to engage with the brand—and possibly even become a loyal customer.
Yet, while Nelson-Field, Follett, and Ritson are painting a rosy picture of the potential of attention metrics, they’re not blind to the challenges. Nelson-Field has cautioned that this new focus on attention needs to avoid the pitfalls of previous measurement obsessions—like the doomed fascination with clickbait-style engagement metrics that once promised to revolutionize digital marketing but instead devalued both content and brand trust. She argues that the industry must focus on “real human attention,” insisting that any metrics not grounded in genuine human engagement (like those that don’t use actual human gaze data) are just more snake oil in a different bottle.
The proponents of attention metrics are also sounding the alarm about the need for ethical practices in this new era. Nelson-Field, for example, warns against using attention metrics to drive advertising into the “cheapest, darkest corners of the internet”—a mistake made in the past with click-driven content. Instead, she’s advocating for the responsible use of attention data to maintain high-quality content and transparent media trading. Her “Attention Revolution” column calls for the industry to treat attention as the “North Star” for ad effectiveness, cautioning that while disruption can be beneficial, it must be validated against actual brand growth and not just short-term metrics.
In the coming months, expect to see a flood of vendors peddling various attention measurement tools. Nelson-Field predicts that while some will offer genuine advancements, many will not. The challenge will be to separate the “quick-fix” measures from those that genuinely add value by capturing real human engagement. As she puts it, the goal is to create a new measurement category that offers more certainty than the industry has seen in a long time—one that can withstand new challenges and continue to evolve in a dynamic media environment.
Attention Metrics: The Darling or the Dud?
So, what’s the verdict here? Is attention the next big thing or just another fad like the pet rock? For every marketer who thinks attention metrics are the magic bullet, there’s another who thinks they’re more like a water gun. The IAB and MRC are diving in headfirst, hoping to calm the waters with their new guidelines, but the industry is left wondering if this is the moment we finally get some clarity or just another chapter in the book of marketing jargon. Are we setting the stage for a revolution in how we measure ad effectiveness, or simply giving ourselves more data to drown in?
One thing’s for sure: the debate isn’t going away anytime soon. As the industry grapples with defining what “attention” really means and how to measure it, there’s a lot at stake—billions of dollars, reputations, and, dare we say, the future of how we connect brands to consumers. Will attention metrics emerge as the guiding star of digital advertising, or will they fade into obscurity like so many trends before them? Stay tuned, folks; this show is just getting started.
