Day 3 of the asi virtual Conference, November 4, assessed what has become a somewhat contentious and misunderstood arena, “Beyond exposure: is it time for an attention-based gold standard?” The five day Conference is generously sponsored by Comscore, GfK, Ipsos, Kantar, Médiamétrie, Nielsen, RSMB and Triton Digital and this session was guided by industry stalwart Brian Jacobs, of Brian Jacobs and Associates (BJ&A).
The somewhat contentious and confusing question was whether “attention” should become the media measurement gold [sic] standard (and therefore part of a trading currency) notably in view of the WFA Cross-Media Measurement, XMM, Technical Design proposal being addressed by ISBA, UK and ANA, USA.
Virtually all the expert speakers underscored that any of their attention measures, research or ad/content ‘attention’ diagnostics were primarily driven by the creative execution rather than the media platform and required “viewing”, exposure or contact – of course! This would appear to answer the WFA’s apparent media measurement dilemma. The ultimate metric for any media currency should be eyes-on, exposure, contact or ears open. This position is unequivocally supported by the seminal ARF monograph, “Making Better Media Decisions”.
“The new model contains eight levels at which media performance can be measured to help marketers plan their advertising campaigns:
Level 2 (OTS): Vehicle Exposure. This is a count of the people exposed to the media vehicle whose eyes or ears are open. It too is a pure media effect.
Level 3 (Eyes-On or Contacts): Advertising Exposure. This is a count of the people exposed to the media vehicle who also are exposed to its advertising. It is the highest level of measurement that is still a mostly pure media effect.
Level 4 (Attention): Advertising Attentiveness. This is the degree to which those exposed to the advertising are focused on it. It is the first measurement level at which the effects of the medium are significantly confounded with the effects of the creative.”
Another question raised was whether, attention should be incorporated into the media currency measures? A reasonable conclusion from day would surely be, no! However what most speakers made clear was to absolutely investigate “attention” Level 4 as well as Level 5: Communication, Level 6: Persuasion, and Level 7: Ad (or program) response in the ARF Model to understand and optimize the impact, Level 8: Sales Response, of the program content or ad creative whatever the media platform, once viewed or heard.
Sorin Patilinet, Global Insights Director, Marswho is a member of the WFA XMM initiative addressed, “The importance of measuring attention – an advertiser’s view.” Mars is focused on the power of the creative message for each and very brand campaign. So, attention, emotion and also skipping are front and center to their goal of maximizing effectiveness. Sorin did state that creative performance is not used to determine a media platform and noted that there is really no common language in the attention arena. He certainly made a great case for the value of outstanding creative.
Regarding the WFA XMM initiative, reach and frequency across platforms and media vehicles (hopefully based on exposure not merely gross impressions or OTS?) is the priority and the key for advertisers.
Neil Mortensen, ITV, perhaps unwittingly after Sorin, made the case for the value of understanding and optimizing great program content as well as assessing the ads. In his presentation, “Culture, Creativity and Curtains: attention in the living room”, he described the use of VR cameras in people’s living rooms. The VR cameras help understand family member’s social equity profile across a wide array of programs based on “viewing” (or other activities). This innovative technique, while revealing various viewing or exposure levels, provides ITV with a diagnosis of attention to their programs which apparently varies considerably. Neil noted that, “fantastic synergistic ads with programs produce high engagement” and has extensive insights on which ads “engage”, are “reachable’ or simply “unreachable” for different consumers.
In “More proof of the value of attention metrics”, Karen Nelson-Field, Amplified Intelligence reminded us of the key understandings regarding the value of “attention” and its quite different interpretations. First, no exposure or no “eyes-on” there is no chance an ad can work. Non-attention is looking away from the screen or just not being on the room. Passive or partial attention could be described as merely looking at the screen without focus. “Active attention” or looking directly at the screen (with focus per ARF) is critical to generating any Short-Term-Ad-Strength, STAS, or possible sales uplift.
Her key finding, based on research across 6 countries, is that 2 seconds of “attention” is not enough based on STAS albeit it does generate “some impact” on the consumer. “Memory appears to kick-in after ~3 seconds”. A potentially serious concern for the MRC, USA Cross Media Measurement Standards. Exposure greater than 2 seconds slows ad decay – the rate at which ad impact erodes over time. She underlined that “even if an ad is viewable”, the so called “viewable impression”, as defined by MRC, “it does not mean it will be viewed!” In addition, her research reminds us that “not all OTS, or gross impressions, are equal.” Are “we” listening to Karen???
Mike Follet, Managing Director, Lumen described how his company has turned one’s web cam into an eye tracking device – in other words an “eyes-on” measurement which reveals engagement. Most importantly, echoing what I have espoused, Mike categorically stated that, “It is unfair to ask a publisher or broadcaster to guarantee an outcome. Targeting and creative are the Kings. In guaranteeing outcomes media owners take on the risk for powerful campaign elements that they do not control or are accountable for.”
He also suggested that the WFA in their XMM technical design proposal showed “a naïve view of how advertising and media work’’ (back to the ARF Model!). Andrew Ehrenberg and Erwin Ephron reminded us that media is a relatively weak force, and that media is only the vehicle not the primary driver.
Yan Liu, CEO/Co-founder, TVision, company’s approach and technique of measuring eyes-towards a screen is surely valuable for media agencies to convert gross impressions or OTS as produced by most media currency entities to the more valuable exposure ratings.
“Attention and outcomes across channels and formats” featuring Sophie Macintyre, Facebook regrettably used walled garden internal data with no third-party validation to back up its findings on the relationship between attention and outcomes, as they defined them, which were certainly interesting if valid. A Mobile Marketing Association, MMA, sponsored study does not qualify as third party!
I have recommended that in measuring media exposure across platforms “ears-open” (as measured by PPM) is equivalent to “eyes-on”. Mark Barber, Radiocentre, is not sure but perhaps he can be convinced? He suggested that audio cannot be straight jacketed into visual media measurement. His, “Oversight: why audio needs a different approach” reminded that hearing (Level 3 or “presence in range to an audio, audible signal”) is passive and involuntary. In radio, hearing is considered distinct from listening (Level 4) – “thoughtful attention with conscious hearing of the message or stimulus”.
Colin Gottlieb, The LadBible Group, offered some valuable insights regarding the importance of key campaign variables in his, review of, “Monetising attention”. These include, environment, context, device; brand category relevance, in going brand equity, etc. etc. that all effect the all-important consumer’s “mind set” when “viewing” an ad. His research has confirmed that all attention even to the same creative is not equal.
In a concluding, “An agency view”,Dino Myers Lamptey, The Barber Shop, like Yan Liu confused exposure or eyes-on with attention. As a strategically led creative company “attention” is plainly of critical importance to his clients and understanding its dimensions can help understand the choice of media platforms.
As mentioned in the panel discussion, “programmatic buying generally ignores exposure and attention” and as Mike Follet implied, there is no attention without noticing or viewing and, advertisers should only pay for what is seen or heard.
The asi virtual Conference Day 5 concludes Friday November 6 focused on Cross-Media Measurement, XMM, with, “When you wish upon a (North) star: will the cross-media dream come true?” Watch out for the fireworks!
