John, while is is virtually impossible to imagine a situation where every single program viewer does not see a particular TV commercial when it appears on the screen, the basic point is that upwards of 10-15% may not be in the room when sa given ad runs---or are just leaving---while another 25-40% are doing something else and not paying much attention---or none at all.  So, typically, you can expect about half of those counted by Nielsen as average commercial minute "viewers" to be actually exposed to an average commercial.

There are a number of "eye camera" research3ers out there at the moment---TVision Insights, for one----but so far, we have yet to see a study where some human response metric is correated with the eyes-on-screen measures. What's needed is a carefully controlled study that compares the ad and message recall of commercials at varying levels of eyes-on-screen behavior. For example it might be determined that verified ad message recall builds up to the point where a viewer "sees" 60% of the ads content, but beyond that there is little gain. This would give us a handle on how to interpret the eyes-on=screen findings, though I would expect all sorts of variables to be at play such as commercial length, the amount of ad clutter in the break, etc. etc. Until we get deeper into this we are merely noting one very good---but not necessarily conclusive--aspect of attentiveness to program and commercial content.

Laurie, having been publishing for 15 years Fortune company sweepstakes, I have seen just about every ad scam types running through servers. As a result of publishing over 72,000 sweeps and contests and over 1.5 billion click through entries, the problem is not with the publishers, advertisers or ad agencies, but the parties that created their own set of rules. This being Google and IAB. Yes, the subjects in your article. Why? Many years ago, all online ads were placed in categories or by industry. for the sweepstakes publishers including NYC women type magazines, every one was grouped in with "Gambling". Sweepstakes is not gambling. The sponsor/advertisers don't charge to charge a entry fee to enter a Ford Motor Co. or NBC or even a HGTV Home sweepstakes. No money is changed hands. However Google and IAB has put the advertisers, ad agencies and publishers in this discriminatory and extreme bias category. Worse the end user is not seeing the advertisers sweepstakes ads because Google and IAB is blocking their ads with their rules. By doing so, this also drives up the ad cost for the because few websites that the ad can be shown on drives up the bidding for the ad location. So when you talk about ad fraud, let's get the fraud out of the rules first. 

nothing like eye contact with an LED Sensor for safety!!

Disintermediation may lead to better alignment between consumers and vendors. Movement to conversational marketing, customization of product itself in addition to personalization of offers.

Reaction and response at speed instead of the turgid 8+ month product cycle of traditional retailers.

Just the words together, eye tracking, is way more than disconcerting. 

Rents would double or triple and scant enough public transportation or markets. Besides, Amazon is in a big Whew moment. They also realize they don't need it. Many of those "jobs" will disappear with more computerization and the area would be left with a rotted building and loads of people with no job.

Hmmm.   Wayne, I'm not questioning the data, but the lede in this story is basically wrong.

"Eye-Tracking Study Shows About 60% Of TV Commercial Breaks Go Unwatched".

A commercial break is a break in a programme into which commercials are inserted.   It is extremely rare for a commercial break to consist of one ad., especially with the ad weights per hour that are now the norm.

But let's assume that there ARE some single-ad commercial breaks" and that they were used in this study (even though it does refer to the improved performance of fourth and fifth ads in the break).

The crucial data is " Five- and ten-second ads were watched over 50% of their total duration on average, as oppose to a 60-second ad, where only 39% on average was viewed."

So let's consider the 'worst-case' of the "60-second ad, where only 39% on average was viewed." (which is where it appears as though the conclusion that "About 60% Of TV Commercial Breaks Go Unwatched" was arrived at).

In real-life numeric terms this means that the 60-second ad averaged 23.4 of its 60-seconds being watched.   In this day and age that is no mean feat.

At the short-length ad end of the spectrum (5-second and 10-second) 50% of the ad duration was watched.

In essence this means that for ANY ad-duration at least SOME of the ad was watched (and on a weighted basis it would be in the 40%-45% based on the above data - but let's use your 40% number).

So what this means is that 40% of the commercial break DURATION was watched (and that 60% of it wasn't).   But it also means that virtually 100% of commercial breaks were watched.   In fact, it probably means that close to 100% of ads were watched - at the duration that the viewer deemed appropriate or useful to them.

This is as it has always been.

Further, every ad-study I have seen shows that you do not need to see 100% of the ad duration to get the ad take-out.   This even applies to brand new ads that the viewer has never seen - they watch the new ad, decide that they are not in the market for the latest car, and then their attention strays ... then bingo, a new ad and the process is repeated.   If you have seen the ad before it is around the 1-2 second mark that you brain recalls the ad from your memory, then recalls the message and the individual's brand take-out - i.e. that ad has done its job.

Shocked !

More like bad for the world. The time will come when electrical grids will fail. It won't just be bad because computers do not work, but hitting a nail with a hammer will be tough. 

Wayne, the presentation by this research firm uses some rather strange terminology and is a tad confusing. Firstly, the average respondent wore the eye tracking glasses for only about one hour ( 30-90 minutes )and, therefore, was exposed to only 25-35 commercials of various lengths. Also, what they report for 15-second comercials is that the viewers' eyes were on screen only 39.4% of the time. Hence the claim that 60% of the breaks are not watched---which is ridiculous. What they mean is that on average, per commercial in a break, only four out of ten program viewers have their eyes on the screen per second. This is about the norm for this kind of research---as subscribers to "TV Dimensions 2019" are well aware. Finally, as regards commercial lengths, their breakdowns actually reveal very little difference. For example, half of the content of a 5-second ad is viewed while the corresponding findings for "15s", "30s" and "60s" all hover around the 39-44% range. And this does not necessarily mean that the very short messages are more convincing---only that  viewers have les time to avoid them by looking at other screens or elsewhere.

[posted to wrong story. please delete]

Blockchain is commonly misunderstood as being related to 'crypto or digital currency'. The value of blockchain when integrated with AI and machine learning to identify fraud, measure ad engagement, and confirm accuracy of media buying; is a game changer. Blockchain4Media is one of those use cases that is a game changer in media buying, putting greater transparency in the value chain from advertiser to publisher.

"[Amazon's] check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00,” Laura Stampler reports for Fortune this morning.

[note: Fortune, which used to be self-named "Capitalist Tool" turns more Left-Collectivist every day.]

Let's see, "25,000 new tech jobs paying in excess of $100,000"

25,000 x 100,000 = 2,500,000,000 [$2.5 Billion]
2.5 Billion x 6.25% (FICA tax) = $156,250,000 paid directly to the Federal Government

True, FedGov will not suffer, since that flood of tax money will still go into the US Treasury when Amazon locates in another state. But the local economy of Queens will suffer tremendously, because now $2.5 Billion yearly in wages, much of which will be spent locally, has just been obliterated by Lefties.

Here is the problem: Amazon is aware that their employees are young, hip, prosperous, and active -- they want to live somewhere cool. However, those are the places infested with rabid capitalism-haters.

Irony: capitalism pays the taxes for the social services those haters love.

"[Amazon's] check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00,” Laura Stampler reports for Fortune this morning.

[note: Fortune, which used to be self-named "Capitalist Tool" turns more Left-Collectivist every day.]

Let's see, "25,000 new tech jobs paying in excess of $100,000" 

25,000 x 100,000 = 2,500,000,000   [$2.5 Billion]
2.5 Billion x 6.25% (FICA tax) = $156,250,000 paid directly to the Federal Government

True, FedGov will not suffer, since that flood of tax money will still go into the US Treasury when Amazon locates in another state. But the local economy of Queens will suffer tremendously, because now $2.5 Billion yearly in wages, much of which will be spent locally, has just been obliterated by Lefties.

Here is the problem: Amazon is aware that their employees are young, hip, prosperous, and active -- they want to live somewhere cool. However, those are the places infested with rabid capitalism-haters.

Irony: capitalism pays the taxes for the social services those haters love.

Clever stuff! Valentine's Day is Upshot's anniversary with this year our 25th anniversary. All Upshotters arrived to find a bottle of Ruffino prosecco and a box of chocolates on their desk yesterday. Swoon!

Thanks for sharing so much great inspiration.

Good points, Mark.

Attention data collectors: Time for Plan B before everyone else realizes Plan B is the way to go.

Really ? By seeing anti social media, they have more time than money and don't have enough to do.

have they taken a poll on how many people want a car that needs an extension cord every 200 m iles?  Are they aware their power bill at home goes way up ?  it's the equivalent of running another air conditioner on your house, and/or 24 hr a day pool pump.

Being a driverless  car driver has to be a nerve racking job. They are paid to babysit a car that should drive it's self.  BUT, because it's just a cluster of plastic circuit boards for brains, it's destined to fail. Meanwhile, the paid driverless driver has to be on the look out for the car doing stupid things and systems failure.  In other words he's got to be on his toes even more so than if he was driving the car himself, watching for things like the car turning right and the wheels don't come back to straight position, that guy has to have split second reflexes.  Hope the pay is good, speaking of pay..................how much does it cost to E-Quip a vehicle with the circuit boards and sensors??

Bravo, Adam! You hit it out of the park.

Their timing couldn't be better.  Boomers continue to be loyal and Gen Z seems to have an interest.  Here's what my students had to say...
http://pjlehrer.blogspot.com/2018/10/is-cause-marketing-reason-for-levis-11.html

Wayne, the headline says "Prime Time, Total Day C3 Viewing Down 14%", which might give people the impression that this applied to all TV audiences---which it doesn't. The data cited is only for adults aged 18-49, who do not represent the majority of "linear TV's" viewing. Just because approximately 55% of national TV buys use this umbrella age group as the basis for GRP grarantee "currency"---not to be confused with targeting----it seems to be the focus for a lot of the trending comparisons we are bombarded with and this is causing many with a digital ax to grind as well as others who are simply not so well informed to think that "linear TV" is losing viewers at a rapid rate. It isn't. As we report in "TV Dimensions 2019", while there is a decline in overall set usage and total viewing time spent or "tonnage", it is of a far smaller magnitude than the  losses among the 18-49s. Also, these monthly reports are not cummulative. If January was down 14% while December was down 10% that doesn't mean TV lost 24 % of its audience over a two- month period. It lost 12%.  What would help to clear up the confusion would be a season-to-date figure---based on the average decline---I'm sure that the source for this info can also provide that.