January 25, 2023
Dentsu Endorses 'Intrinsic' Time-In-View Attention Metric
- by Joe Mandese @mp_joemandese, April 6, 2022
At a time when so-called “attention metrics” are competing for share of industry mind, Dentsu International endorsed a promising one based on a new explicit measure of attentiveness, “intrinsic time-in-view.”
“The average consumer sees over 4,000 ads in any given day, so it is imperative that advertisers start evaluating channels through the lens of attention metrics, which are more indicative of meaningful exposures,” Dentsu Vice President-Global Media Partnerships Joanne Leong, stated, following a pitch for Frameplay’s solution during the IAB PlayFronts conference on Tuesday.
“The results from these studies validate proven attention in Frameplay’s gaming inventory, and we will use this data in planning as we evaluate future intrinsic in-game opportunities,” she said.
advertisement
advertisement
The presentation, which included results from two case studies – one from Lumen and another from Eye Square – utilizing Frameplay’s method, which measures the length of time an ad impression is viewable during game play based on its intrinsic criteria.
Both studies benchmarked the intrinsic in-game ad exposure of a placement for Dentsu client McCormick’s Frank’s RedHot brand.
6 comments about "Dentsu Endorses 'Intrinsic' Time-In-View Attention Metric".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Attention is extremely important, so bravo.
But it is not clear what part of the advertising process effectiveness will be 'based on a new explicit measure of attentiveness, “intrinsic time-in-view.”'
I suspect the drive is for the attentiveness of the video contemt (i.e. programme) stream into which the ad in inserted. Fair enough.
However, the attentiveness level of the 'host' video content is very likely to vary wildly by factors such as age, gender, geography, time of day/day of week. Should such 'content attentiveness' data be successfully developed it could be ingested relatively easily into the buying system.
But has an equal amount of thought been paid towards the attentiveness of the ad? Ad attentivenees would also vary widely (age, gender, geography, time-of-day, frequency, rotation etc) and most definitely the content that the ad is shown.
In my experience, the latter (ad attentiveness) has more impact on overall attentiveness than the former (content attentiveness). Yet I don't see much research into the actual ad's performance and definitely less than in (say) the '80s or '90s, with cost of the research being a factor.
Imagine the cost to measure the confluence of the attentiveness of the media content that the ad is shown in and the attentiveness of the actual ad. The permutations are mind-numbing.
John, I may be wrong on this but my guess is that they are adopting the theory that every second of eyes-on-screen viewing during commercials has equal value. Hence a viewer who devotes 15 seconds to watching a 30-second commercial has 15 times the value of one who devotes only one second to the commercial. So when evaluating a TV buy you would tally up all of the ad viewing seconds for one buy and compare it to the same kind of tally for another buy---factor in cost and you have a time spent CPM.
My problem with this theory is that it doesn't account for the story-telling function of most commercials. Usually there is an attention catching beginning, then the "story" plays out and there is a final sell. So, in my book someone who sees only a few seconds of the commercial may not get as much of a purchase motivation push from this experience as one who sees enough of the pitch to get and mull over its basic message. There is probably a threshold of time when this happens for each message but, generally speaking, I would assume that the longer the attentive exposure the more valuable each second is---this in contrast to the lower time spent scenarios ---or "dwell times" ---where each second may have some value but not as much as those that are part of a longer, sustained and sequential exposure to the ad message.
Ed, I agree with the 'story-telling' function. But that tends to be the impact of the first few viewings, which is the old ... "what is it? what of it? is it for me?" theory of advertising attention and effectiveness. After the hundredth viewing it then tends to be "... not that bloody ad again!".
Further, once the ad is recognised, recalled, and reacted to, the time required for the brain to sub-conciously be activated is surprisingly very short - a bit like a limbic brain activity. Then the message goes to the frontal lobe which decides, no I don't need mor Budweiser at the moment. Ads like that are pure gold and ironically they tend to need less time spent viewing to invoke a reaction.
John, it all depends on what the ad is trying to accomplish and how it is scheduled. For example many commercials are really meant as entertaining hooks to create and sustain brand awareness as there actually is little to differentiate one brand from the other in a category---insurance advertisers are a classic example of this---but there are many others. Here, frequency is not "crabgrass", it is welcomed. In contrast, other ad campaigns are making specific claims or mindset pitches that do distinquish them from rival brands but there is ample evidence that viewers who agree---or are interested in these pitches---- will re-view them with some frequency---providing the ad exposures are spread out ---not coming at them---one after the other--- in the space of a few hours or days. Given a reasonable time lag---say one exposure every few weeks---which is fairly common as an all- brand average-----many viewers will revisit a message they have seen before------or watch another execution from a pool of brand commercials using a new scenarion but telling the same story.
Totally agree Ed.
I was responding via the prism of sales. It seems to me that the great majority of marketing campaigns are about sales results rather than building brands. Instant gratification seems to rule the roost.
John, in the example I gave---insurance advertising----as well as many others when there is little to differentiate one brand's product from the other, awareness has been shown to stimulate sales. There are so many variations---the use of celbrity endorsers, the once familiar "slice of life" commercials, etc. all strive to build and sustain brand awareness as well as a positive image of the brand and it is estimated that 80% of the effects of most TV ad campaigns in categories where there are many competitive brands is to reinforce the convictions of current users---keep them restocking and buying more---while a much smaller share of effects goes to motivating brand switching. One way or another all of these variations and many more eventually generate sales---or are intended to.