Throughout my 35-year professional media existence, whether as a television buyer of national commercial time or a burgeoning televisualist, rarely, if ever, have I had intercourse with creative TV commercial types. Ya know, the guys and gals at the agencies, full service or independent, who create the commercials. I've been invited to dimly lit conference rooms; served beverages and sibilant sounds; exposed to brand campaign flights of fantasy. Certainly, there's been plenty of titillation, a sneak peak at a storyboard, a glimpse of unedited footage, revelatory tête-à-têtes with account planners, but never full disclosure -- until, of course, the commercial hit the air, flaunted for everyone's view. To my knowledge, many of my media buying/planning/research brethren have had a similar experience with their creative agency siblings. A prophylactic connection, at best. Seductive nevertheless. Currently, three companies have succumbed to the temptation of a remunerative relationship with creative propagation: a time shifter (TiVo), a searcher (Google) and an international singer of madrigals (TRA Global). Each company claims to offer a unique value proposition to help the media community evaluate the potency of its creative while in the throes of public exposure. All proffer second-by-second effectiveness barometers that measure the interaction of a hand with a TV remote device. Each promises an evaluation for performance: length, longevity, partner preferences, contextual engagement, and most importantly, the orgasmic ally, return on investment. My concern: Can metered intimacy be turned into a sustainable science. Doesn't each commercial offer a unique proposition. Isn't every commercial pod and commercial position within said pod an amalgam of its own characteristics that are not replicate-able. Doesn't ambience facilitate or, in some situations, assuage purchase. Are we, as a community, guilty of being seduced by mathematics.