• by Paolo Gaudiano , Op-Ed Contributor, March 19, 2015

Digital advertisers today -- and the majority of companies that provide services to them -- focus almost entirely on eyeballs: ensuring that an ad is seen. The growing discussion about viewability reflects the legitimate concern that if an ad is not seen, it has no value to the advertiser who paid for that ad impression.

Beyond simple viewability, audience targeting aims to ensure that ads are shown to the “right” consumers. The definition of “right” is typically based on segmentation, which assigns characteristics to consumers based on their past browsing behavior or demographic attributes.

As someone who has spent three decades studying perception and behavior, I am fascinated with the question of what happens after an ad becomes visible to the consumer. Will she notice the ad? Will she pay close attention to it? What will be her emotional and cognitive reactions to it? Will she click it? Will she later remember it? And how is this chain of events impacted by her mood, her behavior and her past experiences?

Historically, these kinds of questions have been the purview of academic institutions. Decades of research have identified a plethora of factors that can influence perception, emotion, cognition, learning and behavior. However, I believe that online publishers and advertisers should be greatly interested in these lines of investigation, both as users and as producers of research. As users, because there is no question that an increased understanding of human perception can increase the effectiveness of online content, be it original or promoted; as producers, because publishers and advertisers are generating unprecedented volumes of data that can be used to improve our understanding of human perception.

From this perspective, I was pleasantly surprised to see three articles published in close succession by MediaPost’s Tyler Loechner in the last two weeks. The first article summarizes a recent study by Nielsen’s Neuro division measuring brain activity that found a strong correlation between engagement level and Twitter activity during TV viewing. The second article cites another study by this division, showing that mobile consumers tend to pay more attention to native ads than to banners. The third article reports a study by Rocket Fuel measuring the impact on click-through rates of various ad characteristics like color and logo placement.

It’s refreshing to see organizations like Nielsen and Rocket Fuel starting to look seriously at what is happening “behind the eyeballs.” And more companies are now focused on collecting or analyzing emotional, perceptual and/or behavioral data, including Affectiva, Sticky and Realeyes. This trend will accelerate dramatically with the adoption of wearable technologies and the Internet of Things.

The idea of companies trying to get inside our brains is likely to elicit some negative reactions from the general public, who may feel that invasion of privacy is being taken to a whole new level. However, if handled properly, I believe that this kind of research can have huge benefits for everyone.

I have previously complained about misguided attempts to promote publisher content and to force us to view unwanted, irrelevant advertising. I would certainly be happier if I could visit an online publisher site to find a handful of articles trulyinteresting to me -- and, while reading those articles, be exposed to only a few, thoughtful ads about products and services truly relevant to me. If this ever happened, it would translate into lower bounce rates for publishers and higher CTR for advertisers, so everyone would win.